Mr. Clayton,

"Shawn anyone that happens to have a bad temper is only crazy for the minute and could kill after passing a mental exam"

bad temper + crazy for the minute = could kill.........open mouth and insert foot..............people have bad tempers and people can go crazy....NOT inanimate objects. Thanks for prooving our point Mr. Clayton!

The grandmother was asked to pick up the children at day care. It was the two year old's birthday and she was to bring them home so he could open the presents.

The parents knew the grandmother was unstable.

The parents Knew the grandmother had a gun.

The grandmother was asked to pick the two babies up at daycare.

WHAT is wrong with this picture?

Jeremy and Brenda Perry, parents of the two young boys, told NBC Connecticut that Denison had a gun and she had a mental illness

Yet they placed her on the list to pick up their children? That's the real story here folks,... not guns....stupidity.

So, the parents say that she had a gun and had mental problems.........what did THEY do about that??

You hit the nail on the head. These two parents knew Grandma had a gun and mental illness, but they trusted her alone with their children. Didn't 20 children die in Newtown CT very recently at the hands of a mentally ill gunman? What were these two thinking???

Before all the knee jerk responses, remember that she could have driven the car into a lake, or used exhaust fumes or whatever....

This is a mental health problem. Sadly mental health is being ignored and this will continue to happen.

Clayton,

None of my 34 firearms are used for killing. I have pistols that I carry for protection, but they aren't for killing. They are for stopping a threat. Most of mine are used for target shooting, 3 gun competitions, rifle competitions, long distance sniper competitions, and many are collectible pieces from monumental moments in US history, and firearm's history. 12 of my 34 pre-date 1900. I only have 10 that were manufactured later than 2000. As to which state is worse? I would have to say California. It leads the nation year after year with gun related homicides with close to 85% of those being illegally obtain guns.

Also, it's already illegal for a mentally ill person to be in possession of a firearm. An illness like Bi-polar disorder is one red flag for any family member to do something. You never know when they will snap.

Last year, 2012...in all of England ( population 63,000,000) there were 54 deaths due to gunshots. In the USA last year, there were 88 deaths,on average, every day in the USA...hats like having 12 or 13 jet airliners crash and burn EVERY month....the only way that Americans can gain sanity and safety is by banning all guns except for single shot shotguns and rifles for hunting purposes....the Founding Fathers never conceived of semi automatic weapons,they were living in the age of single shot, flintlock muskets which took 15 seconds to reload...and which were accurate to only 50 yards....

The same Founding Fathers also wrote into law, their "Right" to own human beings...the Founding Fathers forbade women from voting,and mostly forbade white males from voting unless they owned land..., we undid that, we can undo the liberal gun-ownership rules in the USA....

Rest In Peace Ashton and Alton Perry.

May Grandma burn in hell.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Two-Young-Boys-Dead-After-Amber-Alert-193425661.html

So instead of having the government regulate gun control you think people need to be scared of their mentally ill family members who own guns? Who may be fine and happy and a wonderful grandparent one minute, but go off the deep end another? I’m not saying the grandmother would not have hurt those children if she did not have a gun, but why make it so easy. Guns are meant to kill. I agree with hunting. If you are able to pass/follow all of the rules of gun control and you want to hunt that is your right. Responsible gun ownership is what we want, not a ban on all guns. Accidents happen all the time, but some are preventable. Also, some risks people take on themselves, like when hunting. If you go hunting you know there is a risk you could get shot. The risk of being shot while going to school should not be so high.

What kind of targets are you using? One shaped like a human silhouette? Speaking of target shooting. There are other ways to do that too. Like play darts or video games. You could also take up archery. A bow and arrow is a weapon, but archery takes more skill, you would think it would be more rewarding to hit the bulls eye. Also, it’s not like your upset teen is going to take your bow and arrows to school seeking revenge on all the people who ruined their life.

Bulldozer knows nothing about country or wildlife. He is dead wrong about snakes.

Laws are such that the mentally stable family members CANNOT do one single thing about looney relatives. The mentally ill have to agree to be committed, unless they first commit a crime or prove they are a danger to themselves or society. Grandma ought never have been on any list of approved individuals who could have possession of the kids. One presumes that the two parents worked 9-5 and the grandmother didn't, thus she was available to pick the kids up. Nutty + guns = never a good thing. The other shoe to drop in this whole debate is that the U.S. has a lot of:

1. Guns;

2. Violent males - many of whom have been in prison and still ought be, (see Cheshire, CT Petit mom and 2 daughters beat, raped, mom strangled and the 2 girls burned alive by 2 criminals on parole);

3. Mentally ill;

4. More women buying guns to protect themselves from violent mentally ill sociopathic males; some of those women will also be mentally ill or violent/sociopathic.

5. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has become one big, dangerous nasty stew of every kind of individual slowly going out of their mind ... usually with a gun in their hand.

6. If one is not crazy or gun happy, the entire spectacle is heartbreaking - for our nation and for the families of those killed by the above.

Ashley-69 Comment collapsed by the community

With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, we now own 40 percent of all firearms in civilian hands. (N Engl J Med 2013:368:397-399) Are they WELL REGULATED as prescribed by the Second Amendment? Obviously not.

First off, no one likes a cut and paste queen spamming he boards over and over again with the same BS. We don't even know if a gun was used yet.

And as I've said before, you need to actually read the Constitution before you go spouting off about it because the Second Amendment doesn't say jack @!$%# about regulating firearms.

"A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be INFRINGED."

Only the militias are to be "well regulated", in regard to firearms it is quite clear "shall not be infringed"

No other Amendment in the Bill of Rights is more clearly written or less open to interpretation.

I don't have any guns only because my husband can't use one and my teenager can be foolish at times. I grew up knowing how to use one responsibly (and I prefer a rifle anyway). But I agree with everyone asking how parents would knowingly and willingly let a mentally unstable person be alone around their little children, grandmother or not. Prayers for those poor boys, but not for their parents who will, I'm quite sure, spend the rest of their life kicking their own butts for stupidity (and rightly so).

People, People, People:

This story is a sad but perfect example of how guns are NOT the problem! Although the story mentions:

Jeremy and Brenda Perry, parents of the two young boys, told NBC Connecticut that Denison had a gun and she had a mental illness.

...It does not mention the cause of the deaths. The grandmother, having a mental illness, could have just as easily parked the car and silently killed them all by exhaust asphyxiation. gun haters get off your soap boxes. Guns save good people's lives daily.

And Creek Dog, As reasonable as your are, I'm surprised you are even entertaining these poor brainwashed souls :)

Gun control freaks learn that it's not the gun, it's the mind.

Which one is more dangerous and should be controlled, gun or three pound gray matter?

Ashley-69

The guns nuts collapsed this post. The truth hurts.

Then you must be hurt because your post is BS just like every other time you've pasted it onto a thread.

Ashley

Would you feel better if those 88 people were killed with a knife or a club or were strangled or poisoned or burned to death?

Liam,

You make some very sound points concerning guns and how the rights of Americans have expanded and evolved since the Founding Fathers wrote our constitution.

However, I will respectfully disagree that Americans today should be limited to single shot shotguns and rifles. By respectfully, I mean that I refuse to resort to name calling, bullying, or denigrating comments. America needs to have a discussion on gun safety and gun control, but all sides need to listen.

The reason I respectfully disagree is because the intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow the citizenry, the people, to resist tyranny. As time has passed since its writing, better weapon technology has been developed. The 2nd amendment also established the basis for a military, an extension of the state. In order for the people to have the right to resist the tyranny that would be enforced by the state's militia, I suggest that the people have the right to be equally armed. People who are limited to single shot weapons verses a militia that is not greatly upsets this balance. Is this scenario likely - I don't believe it is, but I am not willing to give up my rights to find out.

To draw a parallel between the issue of gun control and another right afforded to us in the constitution by the Founding Fathers, I look at the 1st Amendment. It was recently challenged when a lawsuit went to the Supreme Court to try to suppress the disgusting practice of Westboro Baptist Church protesting at funerals. No one finds the message of WBC more disturbing, disgusting, hateful and completely incorrect than I do, but the Supreme Court found in their favor determining that it was protected free speech, regardless of how disgusting, hateful and distasteful it is. I reluctantly have to concede that the Court is correct, not because I agree with anything WBC has ever said or done - I don't, but because I believe freedom will cease to exist from the point when we begin to erode and diminish our rights.

creek:

"You're "correct" and everybody else is wrong! That's one big ass band wagon. Sure fits a "lot" of people..."

If the shoe fits.

It was said that 'guns are made for killing'. Tumbleweed says that's a lie. Then he explains that he uses his to kill snakes. Okay.

1. No one is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. No one. So let's just put that tired old argument to rest. We're talking about common-sense regulation of guns and gun ownership.

2. "Laws will always be broken, so why have them?" As pointed out by others, that argument proves too much. There are three perfectly good reasons to have laws even though some people will break them. First, most people will obey the law. Second, since most gun sellers will obey the law, it will make it harder to get illegal guns or to get guns illegally. And third, when people do violate the law, it means we can prosecute them (and take their guns out of criminal hands).

3. "Guns don't kill people." Sure. And gasoline doesn't start fires. If matches and gasoline together are a major hazard, it makes perfect sense to have common-sense rules about both matches and gasoline. It would be gross negligence to address the use of matches but not the handling of gasoline. It's the same with crazy people and guns. Besides, guns make a crazy person a whole lot more dangerous to a whole lot more people in a whole lot bigger area. Or look at it this way: do you recognize the inherent danger of guns and therefore live by a set of rules for safe handling? Like "every gun is loaded" and "never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot?" That should tell you something. We need common-sense rules governing people and guns.

4. "People will find other ways to kill." Yes, indeed, they sure will. And tomorrow, we'll talk about common-sense regulation of those things. But today, because two more helpless and innocent victims died of gunshots, we're talking about common-sense regulation of guns.

5. "It's a slippery slope." No, it isn't. The Supreme Court has been safeguarding Constitutional rights for as long as there have been Constitutional rights. Take the First Amendment, for example. We've had common-sense regulation of speech and press right from the beginning, and if there's any trend in the Supreme Court cases over time, it is to expand the protections of speech and press (e.g., New York Times v. Sullivan, the commercial speech doctrine), which is the opposite of sliding down a slippery slope. Why is it you seem to like the Supreme Court a whole lot less than the Second Amendment? It makes you look like you're picking and choosing the parts of the Constitution you want to stand on.

6. "We have to be able to resist tyranny." This is the craziest argument of all. The U.S. military (a standing army that the founding fathers didn't have and didn't particularly want) happens to be as dedicated to Constitutional freedoms as anyone is. If it doesn't deem what the U.S. government is doing to be worthy of it intervening, you aren't getting anywhere shooting at U.S. soldiers and law enforcement.

Face it, all of the arguments against common-sense regulation of firearms quite simply fail. I'll say it again: no one is coming to take your guns. That isn't what this is about. Now, let's get to work and enact some common-sense gun regulations.

Sam,

cut the bull sh_t you own a gun and there is only one purpose for owning it to kill someone

you represent the word retarded, owning a gun doesnt say your going to kill someone maybe the person is a hunter and hunts on hunting season and last time i checked ANIMALS is not HUMANS therefor you need to hush up and stay sipping on your fruit juice.

Clayton,

it's not just Arizona and Florida there is mental illness everywhere, jeez where were you the last decade? Then turn around and say Sam is Brilliant then you must be as retarded as Sam. Now be a good lad and relax

Nowere in this article does it say the grandmother used the gun only that she had one, nor does it say it was found in her pocession, and she had a mental problem.

The cause and manner of death will be determined by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

RonB from Pittsburgh

1. No one is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. No one.

Post number 6-

takenaka Comment collapsed by the community

Ban handguns.

So much for your theory.

67% of all gun related deaths in this country are concentrated in the 50 largest metro areas(mostly dem/lib havens). Maybe we should have a serious discussion about banning large metro areas? We'd instantly cut our gun related deaths by 2/3 if we did. If it only saves the life of one child...

@ Backcountry:

You seem to be having some difficulty distinguishing plausible gun control proposals from extremist positions that are so implausible as to have already been collapsed by even this community.

But I fully understand why you make no effort whatsoever to address the substance of my remarks.

RonB, I don't know whether you are lying, or simply uninformed, but there are plenty of people talking about taking away all guns from Americans. Wake up and learn to do your research before you start spouting off. You could start by googling 'Dianne Feinstein' (she's a United States senator), and then go from there.

It's strange reading all these comments about guns. My first reaction is why in the heck would any mother allow her children to be picked up by a mentally ill, gun-toting grandma? I wouldn't care if it was my own mother, I would never let my children alone with her, EVER!!!!!!

Jeremy and Brenda Perry, parents of the two young boys, told NBC Connecticut that Denison had a gun and she had a mental illness.

We have had way too many incidents of mental illness and gun violence. Why was she allowed a gun? It doesn't take a whole lot of grey matter to understand that this is not a good combination. Why was she given permission to get those poor babies?...gross carelessness all around.

Updated stories on this tragedy are available elsewhere.

Janine-1645002

The parents knew the grandmother was unstable.
The parents Knew the grandmother had a gun.
The grandmother was asked to pick the two babies up at daycare.
WHAT is wrong with this picture?

BINGO

ron:

I bow to your articulation. If there wasn't a "'they' want to take your guns away" argument, it would immediately be replaced by an equally inane argument, as I'm sure you've noticed. Desperation is as persistent as it is ugly. Well done.

You know? Two young innocent boys are lost. A family destroyed. And all people here can do is debate gun laws. The grandmother had a history of mental illness, "split personalities." She left a suicide note. Her intent walking out the door was to kill those boys and herself. Even if she did not have a gun, those boys would still be dead. So gun laws are not the debate. As it was her intent to kill them, the absence of a gun only means she would have used a knife, or something to bludgeon or strangle them with. It is ONLY because she used a gun that people are even bringing gun laws into the discussion. If she had used another method, keeping in mind that she had already determined what she intended to do, what would you fear mongers be saying then? THEN you would be talking about why the kids were allowed to be picked up by a woman with a history of mental illness in the first place...Keep some perspective and focus people! Starting with mourning the death of those two boys!

So once again the anti-gun rants surface. The gun was not the problem. The insanity of the grandmother was. I would be willing to bet money she was taking some kind of deadly psychiatric drug.

I guess all the anti-gun people would have felt much better if she had beaten then with a hammer or stabbed them with a knife.

Somebody go asked Joe Biden that if "SHE" had killed the poor little boys with a shotgun or an AK-47 instead of a pistol would it change anything?

People pull triggers......people plain period.

Seymour you are absolutely correct she could have killed her Grandchildren in many different ways but people knew she had a mental illness and she still had a gun...please people if your family member has a mental illness..hide thier gun!..atleast make it a little harder for them to kill people.

ASHLEY-69 (and anyone else blaming gun violence on guns): How many guns have you EVER seen kill anybody?? I haven't seen a single gun do anything in my whole life and I've been around them since I was born. GUNS DO NOT KILL!! Guns are inanimate objects that DO NOT move on their own. PEOPLE have to use the guns. Guns are being blamed for all the gun violence...when it should be the IDIOTS with the guns being blamed!!

I am so sick of hearing how bad guns are!! My dad was a Texas DPS trooper since before I was born, he is now retired. He taught me gun safety and how to shoot all types of guns, since I was old enough to hold a gun. I have always had guns and will continue to have guns for my protection. I taught my daughters how to properly handle guns and to shoot each gun I own. I'm sure they will teach their kids in the future. Guns are used in my family for protection and hunting. NOT for killing other people.

One of the reasons guns are dangerous is if they fall into the hands of people who don't know how to handle them, such as kids who have never been taught gun safety. Guns are, also, dangerous when they are obtained by criminals or mentally unstable people who are intent on harming other people. So the blame should fall on the people using the guns inappropriately, not the guns themselves!!

Sick, sick, sick people. Just sick!

Does anyone here really believe that unconstitutional gun laws would have prevented this crazy bitch from killing those boys?

I think y'all are having the wrong argument.

Mental healthcare and the lack of affordable services is the real issue here.

Sure makes me think twice about some of my guano ass in-laws.

I wonder if she was crazy?

TheMan-1285490

And Creek Dog, As reasonable as your are, I'm surprised you are even entertaining these poor brainwashed souls :)

#1.31 - Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:45 AM EST

I don't know man. It's a pet peeve that I have when people are so misguided. I just try and help them out "reasonably".

Thanks man...

Ashley-69

The guns nuts collapsed this post. The truth hurts.

Truthfully, It's collapsed for a reason. The truth does hurt. Doesn't it....

As TheMan says, "Brainwashed" except they used too much bleach during your mental scrub...

DickCranium

I wonder if she was crazy?

#1.56 - Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:23 PM EST

"Ya think?!"

Dick = Dick

Cranium = Head

Wait a minute..............................Am I getting this right?!

The parents knew that this women suffered from mental illness and that she had possession of a gun.They are solely responsible for the safety of their children and failed them.Mental illness is treatable but not curable.I feel sympathy for the deceased.

Kim]l of North Korea wants the US to have gun control. the more control the better in fact outlaw the things. that way he can make millions on illegal gun running in the US, Mexico and Canada, its true may not be Kim but someone will run guns just like they did in the past when elements of the population were not allowed to have guns, those elements wound up with better guns then the government had, in fact gun running never went away its just not something that is in big demand, so go ahead and open Pandora's box like the fools you are if you be one of those fools,watch the criminal activity take countless more lives on top of what we already suffer, we can have a gun war to go with the gang wars that go with the drug war, Prohibition on guns what a great Idea, if you keep your gun you become a criminal if you don't then you are collateral damage, reason being the deterrent of the private citizen to defend him/her self will be eliminated not the Gun. in 1970 I lived in Japan I don't know the laws now but back then they made rifles and pistols but were not allowed to have them, murder scenes were not something the average person could handle, they were butchery and beyond, in the mean time the underground gun trade was establishing its self and became a part of organized crime, they have lots of guns floating around they just don't have any control, because they have controls. the same is true all over the world, with government control = no control. Remember the gun collecting in California and people were turning in $10,000.00 guns Rocket launchers, grenade launchers(m79), and all the different weapons that you don't run across in the average lifetime, their are people that have howitzers that are not made for hunting what can you hunt that requires a 105mm projectile, I know a swat team in a van. trust me things will only get worse if to many controls are set in motion.

Maybe I missed but did anyone here ask "WHY DID A MENTALLY UNSTABLE PERSON HAVE A GUN?"

If the parents knew she was mentally ill, and she had a gun, why did they ask her to pick up the kids, let alone allow her to be around the kids?

Do any of you see the point here?

I agree with Kevin on the gun issue, but I also agree that the more important issue here is that the parents KNEW grandma had issues, but still let their kids be alone with her! Gun or no gun, you don't leave kids (esp small ones) alone with someone who you even suspect is unstable! I love my mother, but I also know that she is bipolar - therefore she is not left alone with my children nor is she on a list to pick them up from daycare.

@ Janine-1645002

The parents knew the grandmother was unstable.

The parents Knew the grandmother had a gun.

The grandmother was asked to pick the two babies up at daycare.

WHAT is wrong with this picture?

#1.16

My Question Exactly Janine, and everyone else, "WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?"

Some body explain it to this dumb ex Farm-Boy.

Alright ... everything is wrong here - EXCEPT GUNS. So lets keep that off the table please.

NOT.

The gun debate aside - what a bunch of morons the parents are. Why would they ask a mentally unstable person pick up the kids?

Gun banning advocates; may I remind you of the nutcase in Utah who killed his two young boys with a hatchet and then burned down the house with himself inside.

We MUST ban hatchets and fire, as well as guns!!!!

guns aren't going away... even if they were banned outright in the US.... many people who wished to do harm to others would easily obtain or manufacture them...

some moderate regulation is good... but there needs to be a realization that it has very finite limits... reducing gun ownership from capable citizens emboldens criminals to commit crimes against those people...

banning assault style weapons and their standard 30 round magazines would be completely ineffective as was proven previously.. and normal gun owners are rabidly against it as it means banning the most popular rifle in the US, the AR-15... to gun owners (who really see guns as a tool / sporting equipment), it's like saying 'a guy ran down a bunch of kids with an F-150 pickup, so we're gonna outlaw all pickup trucks' ..... huh?

this is about having a real mental healthcare system, comprehensive back ground checks, etc... but spouting all that anti gun dogma (with the sprinkling of lies you guys weave in there) the 47% of adults (Gallup 2011) that own guns just dig their heels in.... and that means nothing will happen in Congress.

My bet is, with the anti gun demands being so rabid, that there won't even be a bill up for a vote this year.... and you anti gun people can look in the mirror when you look for someone to blame... because you really don't understand what you are asking for.

GM Creek Dog & Scooter,

I said it before. Maybe its worth repeating.

If the leadership of this country would spend their time and efforts on dealing with mental illness instead of the tool used we would be way better off.

Police said Denison suffered from mental illness. Brenda and her husband, Jeremy Perry, told NBC Connecticut that Denison had a gun and suffered from split personalities.

I don't recall anywhere in the article anyone saying she harbored a desire to shoot kids. Also, just like another poster noted, she could have just drowned them or crashed the car into a tree at 100mph. Unfortunately she chose to use a firearm so the gates flew open about the GUN and the mental illness just fades into the background noise.

welcome, to the land of; milk & Honey's, FRUITS & lots of NUTS !!!........

Yes, granny chose to use a gun. This is not an isolated incident. In America, people choose guns to kill.

So, here we have it, a granny who everyone knew was nuts. And she was able to get a gun.

I understand that in the US, if you are certifiably nuts, you cannot legally buy a gun. But what if you have not been certified, yet? What if you are not certifiably nuts, and you buy a gun and you live in a house with someone who is certifiably or not certifiably nuts?

How many people are actually nuts, or will become nuts at some point, even temporarily?

Clearly, there are a number of situations where people are not keeping their guns safely, and in safe hands.

Oh well, Onward!

I wonder why no other country's constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms? Was the 2A written on April 1? Is it some kind of cruel joke by George Washington? Crazy? No problem, have a hand gun!

@ Livinginthewoods

One of my favorite songs. Just a great tune, as is the album

I have to wonder what all the anti-gun propagandists on here would be saying if she had driven the car into a pond.

Actually I do know, they wouldn't be saying anything because the article never would have been posted by NBC.

You guys really are insane, you make the extreme gun nuts (who you completely out-number here) look completely rational.

Crystal,

What kind of targets are you using? One shaped like a human silhouette? Speaking of target shooting. There are other ways to do that too. Like play darts or video games. You could also take up archery. A bow and arrow is a weapon, but archery takes more skill, you would think it would be more rewarding to hit the bulls eye. Also, it’s not like your upset teen is going to take your bow and arrows to school seeking revenge on all the people who ruined their life.

Mostly metal round targets, fruits, tin cans, bowling pins, and yes some shaped like people. Some people like to play golf, and that is their choice. Many of us gun owners like to shoot. THAT IS OUR RIGHT. Yeah, archery takes some skill, but let's see an archer get down and hit a 12 inch target at 2,000 yards. They won't because they don't have the skill to do so. It takes a lot of skill to read wind patterns, heat variations, elevation changes, and knowing how to adjust your scope to be able to hit the target. Not to mention knowing how to disassemble, clean and reassemble my Barrett or any one of my firearms. Also, I guess you missed the few people murdered on a college campus last month with a bow and arrow.

It is not the guns fault.....it is the person with "mental" issues fault who has a gun and kills people.

Wait a minute.....might want to add some illegal folks who have guns to that list: "gang bangers", "drug dealers", and "repeat felons".

@ Heather in Washington:

I don't know whether you're lying or just misinformed. Dianne Feinstein's bill most certainly does not call for taking away guns that were already legally owned before the bill was passed:

"Based on the legislation, called "The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013," Americans would be able to keep certain weapons if they were already in their possession when the bill was enacted, and exemptions would be made for specific hunting and sporting weapons, as well as antique or disabled weapons."

There are no proposals in Congress to "come and take your guns."

But again, I perfectly understand your refusal to address the substance of my comments.

Drunk Driving Deaths

1991-15,827

1992-14,049

1993-13,739

1994-13,390

1995-13,478

1996-13,451

1997-12,757

1998-12,546

1999-12,555

2000-13,324

2001-13,290

2002-13,472

2003-13,096

2004-13,099

2005-13,582

2006-13,491

2007-13,041

2008-11,711

2009-10,759

2010-10,228

2011-9,878

Murder by firearms

2003-11,569

2004-11,344

2005-10,100

2006-10,177

2007-10,086

2008-9,484

2009-9,146

2010-8,775

2011-8,583

So looking at these numbers, it's safer to be around firearms than it is to be around cars. Both
involve the illegal end use of the product. There are something like 100 million more firearms in this country than cars, so statistically speaking cars are more dangerous.

Janine at 1.16 said it all. Another case of a mentally unstable person allowed to have guns and family members are OK with that. Absolute shame that people have no common sense any more. It's not a gun problem as much as it is a mental illness problem. Remember Susan Smith drove her car to a lake, got out and let it roll in with her 3 boys seat belted in. Take the gun out of the picture and these wackos still kill. It is horrible.

Rob,

On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, "I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation" and "It will be carefully focused." Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21^st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein's website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of "assault weapon" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein's new bill are as follows:

• Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein's new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.
• Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California's highly restrictive ban.
• Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein's 1994 ban listed "grenade launcher" as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing "rocket launcher." Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add "nuclear bomb," "particle beam weapon," or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

• Expands the definition of "assault weapon" by including:

  --Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

  --Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," except for tubular-magazine .22s.

  --Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches," any "semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

• Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 transfer tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE's permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
• Prohibits the transfer of "assault weapons." Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein's new bill, "assault weapons" would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
• Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
• Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm "overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose." Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines "overwhelmingly chosen" by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein's list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
• Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill's list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.

The Department of Justice study: On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously."

"Assault weapon" numbers and murder trends: From the imposition of Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of "assault weapons" has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an "assault weapon" is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE's firearm manufacturer reports. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s--all models of which Feinstein's new bill defines as "assault weapons"--rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation's murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

Traces: Feinstein makes several claims premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (already infrequent) use of "assault weapons" in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing "assault weapons" were exempted from the 1994 ban and new "assault weapons" continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by "assault weapons" during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.

By saying a person who dies must forfeit their weapons to the govt is in a way the govt coming after guns.

now tell me there's a god

@ Dawgfan:

What's your point? You do know that we regulate the ownership and use of motor vehicles, as well as what features they can and can't have, right?

I know our legislators aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, but you do know that they are capable of passing laws that regulate cars and laws that regulate guns, right? Other stuff, too, even!

And before you reply with "there's no Constitutional right to drive," let me add: There is a Constitutional right to run a newspaper, but you can still go to jail for publishing fraudulent or illegal ads.

Ashley,

Maybe we should implement some of those same standards with voting. Oh, that's right. Those were found to be unconstitutional weren't they?

Rob,

Vehicles aren't protected by the Constitution. Hence the reason why we have driving tests, regulations on their use, and the reason why driving PRIVILEGES can be taken away or denied to anyone.

The only way to stop a bad grandma with a gun is a good grandma with a gun... er something.

@ Dawgfan (again)

Wasn't it Charlton Heston who said "they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers"?

Well, Feinstein is just taking him up on his offer.

Let's make sure this is clear: You object to a law that would ban new transfers of certain kinds of weapons because it bans a transfer that happens after you're dead?

Wow.

I mean, just, wow.

Dawgfan,

I've already answered your last point about cars. We regulate Constitutional rights all the time. What makes you think the Second Amendment is different? The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." and yet we regulate speech in all manner of ways.

Even Antonin Scalia recognizes that gun ownership is subject to government regulation.

I recognize that it's theoretically possible to be to the right of Antonin Scalia, but it gets pretty lonely way out there.

@JEEESES........Thank you for the good laugh ........

Some people here are so good on keeping statistics on file .My big question is "what was in those parents mind " to trust a split personality individual to DRIVE their children and to leave them in her care "EVEN FOR A MINUTE " don't they read this post everyday ?. I'm sorry I'm not for guns, but guns are not at fault people .She could have drive off the cliff or anything else to accomplish her evil mind set .

RIP LITTLE ONCE .......

Americans are a group of people who spend their time reacting to salacious tidbits of dribble put forth by the media. This is yet another poorly written article. Shame on you. You should demand better.

Ashley-69

The following comment has been collapsed twice by the gun lovers. Censorship and the proponents of the Second Amendment to block the First Amendment:

This was not collapsed to infringe on your First Amendment rights, it was collapsed because it's WRONG. If you would like to read the Second Amendment and get correct facts to quote, then make a relevant argument, maybe it wouldn't be collapsed.

dawgfan, don't go bragging too much on those car/gun numbers.

People use cars a lot more than they use guns.

Most people do not own a gun. Of those who do own a gun, I'll bet that a significant number of their guns sit in a closet most days.

Just about everyone takes a car, taxi, motorcycle, or bus every day. Sometimes for hours a day.

If everyone in America took their guns along when they went for a ride in a car, bus, motorcycle, or taxi, there'd be a lot more dead people in America. Refer to the recent story where a guy put his loaded gun on the floor of his pickup truck and his dog shot him. Freaking moron.

You are way safer in a vehicle, without a gun.

Rob,

Yes, I do oppose a ban on transfer of firearms after someone dies. I inherited some firearms from my grandfather when he passed. 4 of them were used in WWII, 2 were his duty weapons while he was in the FBI, and 2 others were passed down from when our ancestors came to this country in 1650. You're damned right I oppose any such confiscation of guns. Those are my property, and when I die MY PROPERTY GOES TO MY FAMILY. NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

Let's get real here...yes the article says they all suffered from gun shot wounds, so cue the anti-gun activists and let the debate begin. Come on...seriously? The grandmother was known to own a gun and had "mental illness" yet was made responsible for getting the kids from daycare to their birthday party as the article says. Now do you think that NOT having a gun would have stopped this lady from murdering her grandkids? I doubt it...take a look at the Josh Powell case. This guy murdered his kids with an AXE and lit his house on fire. Anti-gun people weren't barking their useless comments in that case, yet it still happened and he still murdered his own children. My point is that stricter gun laws will not take guns out of the hands of criminals, it will only give them more power against law abiding people like myself. Maybe they should put more time and effort into people with mental illness or violence issues before they start dumping all of our taxpayer dollars into more pointless gun laws. Yes I own a gun, that has 14+1 rounds to help insure mine and my families protection from the criminally insane people of this great country. You know...the ones who are willing do harm to others whether its with a gun..a car..a knife... an axe....or even a rock....

Call me a "gun nut" or a "gun lover"...either way is true...but to all you ANTI-GUN people...who would you rather have standing by you if you were ever held at KNIFE point...the person legally carrying a handgun and willing to use it to protect you...orrrrr the one standing by with his cell phone to call the police for help and await their arrival?

Nice to see hundreds of people instantly use the death of two innocent children to discuss and argue their agenda.

Good point, Tuku4u!!

I will have my gun and protect myself and my family. I live too far away from the nearest law enforcement agency to expect them to get there in time to protect me.

So um, I guess no one notice the grandma had mental issues? But yep, society today will just about blame anything else besides the responsible person. Why not blame the rocks..............They look funny.

RonB from Pittsburgh

@ Backcountry:

You seem to be having some difficulty distinguishing plausible gun control proposals from extremist positions that are so implausible as to have already been collapsed by even this community.

Senator Feinstein is on the record saying she would confisacte what she deems to be "assult weapons" if she could get the votes to do so. Regardless, your claim that "no one" is proposing taking guns is every bit as much BS as the rest of your post.

But I fully understand why you make no effort whatsoever to address the substance of my remarks.

I'm glad that you realize all of your talking points have been "addressed" ad naseum. But it doesn't really explain why you keep posting them. But what the hell, I'll bite

1. already proven to be BS

2."Laws will always be broken, so why have them?" LOL! That is pure spin. Gun control laws primarily impact law abiding citizens. Aside from that you don't even say what sort of laws you're defending here so how could you possibly expect a response?

3. So every one has their rights infringed because a very, very small percentage of people are "crazy"? Why stop with guns? Surely we don't want crazy people driving cars, perhaps we should make it harder for people to get cars also, you know, just in case a crazy person tries to get one. And of course we don't want crazy people to get those matches or gasoline, obviously we need some form of ID check before anyone be allowed to purchase either of those dangerous items. /sarc Isn't is funny how you gun grabbers only apply your "logic" to guns???

4. More people are killed by blunt force trama. Are you actually suggesting we should look into "common sense" regulation of hammers and baseball bats. Clearly you have no clue the meaning of the phrase "common sense".

5. Your comparision to the First Amendment is laughable. There are no limits placed on the First that limit the freedom of speech just because speech could be harmful. Only speech that actually is harmful is restricted, just like I can't use my gun to harm someone now.

6. What you call the "crazyist argument" is in fact the very purpose of the Second Amendment. It is the reason it was written. Maybe we should just do away with the Second altogether since it's reason for being is "crazy".

Face it, all of the arguments for "common-sense" regulation of firearms quite simply fail. There is no other example in our country of law abiding citizens losing Constitutionally guaranteed rights just because maybe, some "crazy" person might do something.

Davey,

I get in my car everyday with a gun on me. You would be very surprised at how many people actually carry a gun with them. It's a lot more than you think. Most of them don't have a CWP because it's not illegal to carry a gun in your car without it. A significant number of my guns do sit in their protect shelter, but only because I can't carry all of them all the time.

@ GodblessAmerica #1.42. It's not a surprise that the 50 largest metro areas account for 2/3 of the gun deaths in this country (if that statistic is even true), since they account for 2/3 of the population of this country. If the number were significantly more, or significantly less, then that might be interesting. Also, it's not a question of whether the cities are predominantly democratic or liberal (and not all of those cities are), it's a question of whether the shooters identified with one party of another.
Look at it this way: if San Diego is a Republican city and has a lot of gun violence, then that makes your argument look bad, but if its violence is carried out by Democrats, then maybe your argument is good; if San Francisco is a Democratic city and has a lot of gun violence, then that makes your argument look good, but if its violence is carried out by Republicans, then maybe your argument looks bad. Get it?
Frankly, I'd be awfully surprised if gun violence was correlated with political outlook, height, weight, religious affiliation, left-handedness, or any other simple thing.

To everyone who says: "guns don't kill people, people do" just remember that if that's true, then guns also don't protect people from criminals, oppressive governments, varmints or whatever... people do. Really, it's an almost completely meaningless statement. Try to come up with something better than arguing by slogan; you know, come up with your own ideas or something.

FWIW, I doubt gun regulation or concealed carry laws or anything else would have made any difference in this case. It's a tragedy, and the gun angle is just a sideshow.

This is the reason why over 90% of the nation believes that there should be background checks when buying a gun. The <10% is always quick to yell their minority B.S. on MSN's threads. So annoying...

Again guns get the Blame, Not the Mentally Ill grandmother. There needs to be a Nation Wide Background Check. Guns Don't Kill People, Freakin' Nut Cases Do. It appears she was set on doing this. Had she not had a gun, She would have driven the into the lake or something.

How did a story about a mentally disturbed person murdering her 2 grandchildren turn in to a debate over gun control?

The parents knew she had a gun and let her keep it anyway. WHY?

They knew she was mentally disturbed and they left her alone with thier children?

This story is about not being stupid.

richardharrow

Most gun sales are through dealers where a background check is mandatory. I would bet that grandma bought her gun thru a dealer and went thru a background check.

How effective was that law?

What good is a background check if you don't obtain your gun legally from a licensed dealer?

All the National Background Check will do is take longer for a law abiding citizen to buy a gun. The criminals and crazies won't be getting a background check to get their guns. Come on people, use common sense. This is NOT going to stop the criminals from getting guns.

@ Backcountry164 #1.94
It's usually not a good idea to post statements as fact when they are obviously false. For example, your claim that Sen. Feinstein said she would confiscate assult (sic) weapons if she had the votes. No. You can look it up. She said she would make them illegal, and ask people to turn them in. Obviously you can't confiscate weapons people have and don't use, without searching every house in the country, but you can take illegal weapons from people if they are observed using them. Fireworks are illegal in a lot of states, but the police don't run around confiscating fireworks.

1. RonB from Pittsburgh's first point wasn't BS. He should have said something like no one with any sense is talking about taking guns from law-abiding citizens, but I think that's clear from what he said at the end of that point: "common sense regulation of guns and gun ownership."

2. is not "pure spin," whatever that is supposed to mean. He was responding to something said in the 4th post on this thread: "Gun control doesn't mean @!$%#. Control and Laws on anything from speed limits to drugs just don't work." If you read all the way down to RobB's post (#1.38), you must have seen the posts way at the top of the list. Obviously, controls and laws on things like speed limits and drugs do work, to a certain extent. So do laws against theft, rape, and murder. The fact that those lost don't work perfectly is not a reason to get rid of them.

3. RonB did *not* apply his logic only to guns. He's the one who brought up the example of matches and gasoline. The fact is, if you try to enter a courthouse or board an airplane with matches and gasoline, you will be stopped -- not because you are obviously dangerous or crazy, but because you are putting yourself and everyone else in a potentially dangerous situation, whether or not your intentions are completely benign.
RonB added that you already probably use a set of self-regulations with your guns: you probably follow the rule to "never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot" and the rule that you should "treat every gun as if it's loaded." Those are common sense regulations. Maybe it won't work if you try to apply common sense regulations to everyone, but it definitely won't work if you refuse to even try to think of what a common sense regulation might be.

4. See above.

5. Yes, there are restrictions on 1st Amendment right for things that could be harmful. Printing lies about someone *could* be harmful. Violating someone's privacy *could* be harmful (e.g. shooting photos of a common citizen through their window). Exhorting a mob to break into a jail and free a prisoner *could* be harmful. Printing the name and address of someone accused of a crime (but not found guilty) could be harmful. Advocating the overthrow of your duly-elected government *could* be harmful. And the classic example: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater could be harmful. For many of these things, the law doesn't punish someone after the harm has been done, it punishes them as soon as the action occurs.

6. Yes, thinking that if you arm yourself with a .308 you will be able to resist government tyranny is crazy. It's obscene that militarized SWAT teams break into hundreds of innocent people's homes with no-knock warrants and often end up shooting their dogs, and even innocent people themselves. But if you think that having a rifle or a shotgun is going to make you safer in such a situation, you're crazy. The solution isn't to arm yourself and virtually guarantee that some trigger-happy policeman is going to riddle you with bullets; the solution is to limit the power of the government (including demilitarizing the police) so you don't need to rely on your weapons. When you get that far, it's already too late.

Thank you, irtnogg. That was an excellent reply.

The only thing I would add on #6 (being from a military family myself) is that the U.S military will absolutely step in and end a tyrannical government without firing a shot. There will never be a need to put the U.S. through what Syria is going through. If the "militia" types take to the streets and try to bring that on us in circumstances where the U.S. military hasn't already intervened, they will be justifiably slaughtered if they keep firing their pop-guns at their fellow citizens who have pledged their lives to uphold the Constitution.

RonB,

Some of the military at the direction of the President would follow his/her orders. There would be people loyal enough to them to fire on citizens, while others would side with the citizens if gosh forbid our president tried to become king and the supreme ruler or started trying to take away rights and going against everything in the constitution.

Texas "I would bet that grandma bought her gun thru a dealer and went thru a background check."

Going off pure speculation-and speculating that the law in already in place. Besides if you are convinced that everyone is going through a background check anyway then why are you against the new law?

Cowboys&Angels: "The criminals and crazies won't be getting a background check to get their guns. Come on people, use common sense. This is NOT going to stop the criminals from getting guns."

Why wouldn't they be going through background checks? Because everyones grandma knows a street corner to buy an unregistered gun? Please.

Also "All the National Background Check will do is take longer for a law abiding citizen to buy a gun."

Lord forbid you have to wait a couple of weeks to get a gun. What is the big hurry? Gotta go pull off a heist? I had to wait 2 weeks to start up my job as they did a thorough background check on me. And that is just to work. 90% of us agree that there should be mandatory background checks. You don't find yourselves left in the dark?

A Good Start?? First Put down The BlameThrowers and realize their are Many Many Many GOOD Men and Women in America who deserve better Like: An American Universal HealthCare System WITH Fully Equipped Psychiatric OutReach Teams with "Examine and Retain" Authority. That GrandMother was Criminally Insane. A Well Staffed Psychiatric OutReach Team "Probably" Would have detected her Mental state Of change and comitted Her Immediately, ESP with a warning call from the family. Those "Mental Management" pills peddled by Big Pharma are VERY Profitable, Hence they got our Federal and State Politicos to close down the mental Hospitals across America to peddle their pills; and yes this person used a Gun to kill with. BUT Many Many Many Many Mentally SICK People who SLIP Into Criminal Insanity have used different Instruments to Kill. Banning Guns???? Prohibition tried banning Alcohol and foreign Distilleries AROUND THE WORLD JUMPED FOR JOY at the oppty; Just like FOREIGN Weapons Manufacturers are just waiting for a gun ban.... The Real Culprits???The Absence of An American Universal HealthCare System, to get the insurance corporations off our backs And ReOpening ALL The State and Federal Mental Hospitals for VERY Dangerous People like this Unfortunate CRIMINALLY INSANE Women. We Do Not need What is coming... Just look at the changes made by the Evil Rich and Their Corporations to America...If this happened All at once in 1970 there would be a full scale Revolution Just Like The French Revolution. So it makes sense they want the guns taken away.....

Since so many anti-gun activists are blaming "the gun" instead of the crazy a$$ grandmother we may as well blame McDonalds for making people obese and causing heart disease...oh wait...we've already done that. BAN CHEESEBURGERS!! THEY KILL MILLIONS!! Yeah sounds ridiculous doesn't it? The point is that if someone is going to commit a murder...they are going to do it with whatever means possible, be it a gun, a knife, a bat, or a sharpened tooth brush...doesn't mean we blame Colgate....and passing laws on people with toothbrushes is hardly reasonable. It is a choice that the individual makes, and follows through with. Preventing senseless murders is the bottom line, and I sure as hell will use my gun and every bullet in it to prevent harm from coming to the ones I love....sorry I didn't have any statistics to google/cut/paste to back up my cheese burger comment. :/

richardharrow

I not convinced everyone is going through a background check... just the law abiding citizens. Most of my guns were bought from a dealer and I went through a background check. In fact I have been through many of them. Why should I have to wait 2 weeks to buy a gun when I already own a lot of guns?

Why wouldn't they be going through background checks? Because everyones grandma knows a street corner to buy an unregistered gun? Please.

Do you really believe a new law is going to change this? As far a 90% of American wanting a universal background check, that's BS... you would be hard pressed to find that much support on this forum.

richardharrow

I own 5 guns myself (not counting the many my husband owns). Only 1 of which was bought from a licensed dealer. The rest was given to me. I've been through a background check for that gun, it took about 30-45 minutes. I also went through a thorough background check for work as a teacher. I have no problem with background checks. My problem is with people thinking background checks will stop idiots from getting guns. It's easy to get a gun without background checks. Remember, I have 4 other guns that were given to me from different people...no background check required. Hmm.....

I'm not sure where you get "90% of us agree that there should be mandatory background checks" but I'm pretty sure that's not accurate. I live in Texas and there's no way in Hell you'll find that much support here.

Texas_Born & Bred - thanks!! :)

Unreal!!! The parents knew the grandmother had a mental illness, and the father knew the grandmother had a gun and split personalities.

Who's to blame?

Parents should be arrested for putting the children in harms way!

Texas and Cowboys-The idea is to deter. People can still steal a car with "the club" on it but why bother when you can go to the next car? Who knows if that lady would have even tried going to buy a gun if she already assumed that she more than likely would be denied. Do you think that people with split personalities should be gun owners? Do I think this will prevent all "idiots" from getting guns? No, there is no panacea for anything. But to deny that this could deter some people from going to buy a gun when they know that the public does not think they should have a gun is beyond me.

I thought that poll was 80% but then I googled: percentage that supports background checks
and I was corrected.

Janine, IA Scooter Mike, et al that point out that the parents played a part in this tragedy are right. You never know when someone is going to snap, but a woman with mental illness, split personalities is still on the pick up list for her grandchildren?
In the last year I've removed my mother from the pick up list and contact lists for my children. Her behavior has been erratic lately and she is forgetful. For example, she has no memory of shoving my son to the floor, so hard his head snapped back. Now, not the biggest offense out there, but still indicative of unstability and that she forgot the entire thing...frightening.
Now, I'm not what one would call a 'gun-control nut'. I'm not in favor of banning all guns. But I ask, with all sincerity, what am I to do with my mother, who is a gun owner, and who at the time she purchased her guns (rifles to be exact) was sane by state standards, but now exhibits irrational and unstable behavior?
I started with not allowing her to be alone with them, nor to pick them up at school and no going over to her home.

That stated, my condolences to these poor parents. To lose both your babies is truly tragic.

richardharrow

I agree with you in theory. This might deter someone who knows they can't pass a background check from trying to buy one.

But my point is: do you really think a criminal or a mentally unstable person would even consider buying a registered gun from a licensed dealer in the first place? No...they will try to get a gun from anyplace else...more than likely an unregistered gun.

My gut reaction is WTF YOU LEFT YOUR CHILDREN IN THE CARE OF A WACKO GMA WHO OWNED A GUN?

but at the end of the day, she was a law abiding citizen exercising her right to own a firearm.

the fact that it ended as it did, well...thats just the story of America.

let's just try to embrace it, since we cant stop it.

I say, give everyone a gun...the problem will sort itself out.

You would be very surprised at how many people actually carry a gun with them. It's a lot more than you think.

Well, go ahead, surprise me. How many people carry a gun? The number must be miniscule. America will never be a country of citizens walking around in public with guns. We don't want that for ourselves. You get that, don't you?

davey-526272

You should come to Texas. You would see a lot of people carrying guns in public and a lot that you won't see because they are concealed. When you say "We don't want that for ourselves." Who are you talking about?

@davey

"We don't want that for ourselves"....Speak for yourself buddy

you guys are all missing the point ... this case has nothing to do with a gun ...so lets get that straight...take some notes with this case:

a) gun or no gun...she could have drowned them or whatever ... they are just poor babies so it would not take much

b) she has a mental illness yet was able to pick the children ... the grandmother's contact with the kids should have been supervised ... things happen and we have to take a lesson (family or no family) on protecting our children as best as we can...no guarantees in life but mitigate the risks...

i hope the family finds peace

J. Paris, knives were not "invented" to kill people. That's stupidity beyond all measure. Knives also have other uses. My knives rarely leave the kitchen, they are for cooking not killing. The guns don't killed people, people kill people is old and was always idiotic. If people kill people why in the hell would you give them guns? There are too many half-wits who don't respect the weapon, we have accidents just about every week in this country, fatal ones involving guns that were in the hands of people whose IQ was almost mentally handicapped low and understanding the huge responsibility they have taken in owning a gun was impossible for them. There should never be an accident involving a gun. EVER. If you have a mentally ill person living with you, and you know if you do, you should not have a gun on the property. Period. I have no doubt these people are moaning and wailing but there were signs this woman wasn't right in the head and they ignored them. There are always signs. They will never be able to ban guns in this country. They do need to start removing the weapons from the hands of anyone who has ever had an "accident" with one, permanently. If someone in your house gets a hold of it and kills someone, again you should lose your right to gun ownership for the rest of your life and finally they need to make a law that the word accident, doesn't belong in any situation involving death by gunfire, it should read homicide on the death certificate. It should be manslaughter at the least.

Speak for yourself buddy

In this situation, I speak for Americans. Let's be clear. Less than 1/2 of all Americans own guns. Much less than that own hand guns. Much, much, much less than that carry their hand guns in public.

In my opinion (speaking for myself), there is something wrong with you if you carry a gun in public and you do not need to carry that gun for your job. That is, if you just take it on yourself to carry a gun in public. That is a bad sign for you.

actually F Walsh....I believe you are wrong...."knives" were crafted back in the caveman days to exactly what? Kill...hunting and protection I am sure..but killing none the less. And fyi...guns are incapable of walking around shooting people at random...it takes someone or something on the other end of it make it go off...ya know...just in case you are unaware of how those types of things work.

@davey,

Lets be clear, I am an American and you don't speak for me. And I do carry a gun everywhere I go. Why? Because it IS my job to keep myself and my loved ones protected from people aiming to do harm to them. If that's what you mean by "your job" then yes, I believe every American should carry to protect their loved ones, and hand me that "bad sign" you're speaking of. I'll be the guy shooting back at the gunmen trying to end your life while you ball up in some corner in the fetal position and hope for the cops to arrive before it's too late. You're welcome. ;)

Yes, of course you are an American and of course you carry a hand gun in public. But you are in the minority. You are weird. Hey, there's an exception to every rule.

No, protecting yourself and your loved ones is not a "job". You may consider it your responsibility. But you are not alone in this. I, too, have a family and I do not carry a gun. So, you approach your responsibility differently from most people.

I believe every American should carry to protect their loved ones

Really? You think that every American ought to have a hand gun? You see the news stories every day where someone loses it, and you want to pass out the pistols? What is your statement based on? Has there every been a civil society of people walking around with guns?

So, let me ask you, does carrying a gun make you safer? If you say 'yes', how do you know that? You see plenty of news stories where bad things happen when guns are around. Your gun could be stolen. Your crazy uncle could grab your gun and kill your whole family. Happens all the time. How do you know that you are safer with a gun? Or, is that just another one of your beliefs?

Yeah and your crazy uncle is capable of grabbing a kitchen knife and killing your entire family as well. What's your point?

And in the case of you believing Santa Clause and The Easter Bunny...explains a lot of your logic as to the world full of rainbows and butterflies. By every American, I mean every capable, law abiding citizen that is willing to protect rather then flat out murder. There IS a difference.

If you don't believe it's your job or your duty to protect your loved ones, then I feel bad for your family. Does a gun make me safer? Damn straight it does. I would rather be armed and capable of defending myself with a firearm, then be without and clinging to my cell phone and hoping for help to arrive. IF twenty cops came to your rescue using nothing but pepper spray and a stern voice, would you feel more safe? Maybe Santa Clause will save you. But hey...I believe that even the Easter Bunny should carry a firearm.

There is no chance that your crazy uncle will kill your family with a knife. Mass murders are rarely (ever?) committed with a knife. Gun?? All the time. You need to worry more about guns, than knives.

By every American, I mean every capable, law abiding citizen that is willing to protect rather then flat out murder. There IS a difference.

Yes, there is a difference. But how can you tell the difference? How can you tell if a crazy doodle is getting a gun, instead of a capable, law abiding citizen?

If you don't believe it's your job or your duty to protect your loved ones, then I feel bad for your family.

Ah, the illusions of the gun people. Dude, I protect my family and myself just fine. The proof of that is evident. And no guns. A gun would make them less safe. A gun does not care who it kills. Your gun will kill you as sure as it will kill someone else.

I would rather be armed and capable of defending myself with a firearm

You have that choice, but how do you know if it is a good choice? Think, if you did not have your gun, what else would you defend yourself with?

IF twenty cops came to your rescue using nothing but pepper spray and a stern voice, would you feel more safe?

You are a fool if you think that you are defenseless without a gun.

Does a gun make me safer? Damn straight it does

How do you know? Are you aware of this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

How do you know that you are safer with a gun? Will you live longer than me? Do you have a longer life expectancy than non-gun owners?

Easy there buddy, at no point did I say I am defenseless without a gun. I am plenty capable of defending myself with or without one, I just choose to do so with one. What do you protect your family with? What type of situation have you ever been in to even make your statement evident? I would never wish harm on one or ones family but have you ever came across a situation where you had to protect your family from an armed person? How do you know that you are truly capable of protecting them? You don't...until it happens. But I will tell you that I won't be the guy standing there wishing I hadn't "brought a knife to a gun fight".

Your "mass murder" argument gets old. One of the biggest mass murders known to ever happen all had to do with a cup of tainted kool-aid. Or maybe a box cutter and an airplane makes more sense to you? And your point again wasssss....???

There are more capable law abiding citizens in this country then "crazy doodles". For every 1 person willing to do bad with a gun, I am sure there are at least 20 who would do more good with one. If I am attacked by a crazy man with a gun, well I would rather have one to protect myself, or be in a room full of others who are carrying one with the same intentions as I have.

How do you know that you are safer with a gun? Will you live longer than me? Do you have a longer life expectancy than non-gun owners?

Wow you're like that kid that asks "why"..."but why"...."but I don't understand...why?". I, myself, feel safer with my gun in hand, and the people around me who know me, and know that I will use it to protect them, feel safe as well. That's all that matters to me. Will you live longer then me by NOT owning a gun?? Guess you should do another study and cut and paste it to try and validate your pointless argument.

Yes, you feel safer with a gun. Yes, you believe that you are safer with a gun. But you do not know.

So, you say, what's the big deal, I don't know, so what? Nothing bad is going to happen to me, because of my gun.

No, my argument is not pointless. You just do not get it. Let me explain.

Now, let's say that you are who you seem to think you are, a responsible gun owner. Your gun will never be stolen. Your gun will never be used for bad. You will keep your gun safe. It's OK for you to want a gun, and to have it.

But, you also want guns to be widely available. You want just about anyone to be able to get a gun.

For every 1 person willing to do bad with a gun, I am sure there are at least 20 who would do more good with one

You amaze me. It is OK with you if 5% of the population want to commit crimes with a gun? And you need your gun to protect yourself against the 5%? You need a gun to protect yourself against people with guns?

You know, if I had a gun. And if I decided that you would be my next victim. Your gun would not help you. If I had a gun and if I wanted to kill you, you would be dead. BTW, I am crazy, but I do not have a mental health record. I have not been in the system. I just bought a hand gun, all nice and legal.

So, under the system that you favor, crazy anti-social whackos will be buying hand guns and will do bad. You do understand that if one of them decides to kill you, or your family, that you are dead.

Why do you want to let so many crazy people get guns? You are playing a losing game. The crazy guy will get off the first shot and you or one of your family will be dead. OOps. But then, if you are still alive, you can kill him. Yay!!

If I gave you $1,000 to not carry a gun for one week, would you?

CreekDog:

You know "nothing" about snakes dude. Go ahead and stick your arm out and lets find out if it's a "dry" bite. What a dummy man...

LOL yeah sure, other than I spent 11 years as a zookeeper (including handling snakes) and 3 years prior to that working with exotics (including snakes) and I spend a lot of time in the woods surrounded by---you guessed it--snakes. (including venomous ones) I'm speaking from over a decade of real, actual experience and twice that of informal experience. I've also worked with reptile experts. But I suppose you think you know more than the experts do in reptile behavior. Typical of your ilk

pffft, all you know how to do is call people names because you don't have any education or experience to back up your ignorant, partisan BS. the worst part about this? I can tell by having read dozens of your posts that you are not stupid. just woefully uninformed and apparently comfortable to remain that way

Yet another tragedy in American caused by a gun. Yet another mentally unstable person who was able to get her hands on a gun and commit this tragedy. Guns serve two purposes, and two purposes ONLY: Killing, and practicing killing. And only those in the business of killing have any reason to own one. I understand why police and law enforcement have guns. But anyone else who owns a gun, owns it to kill or to practice to kill. End of story.

@ RonB from Pittsburgh

@ Dawgfan,

I've already answered your last point about cars. We regulate Constitutional rights all the time. What makes you think the Second Amendment is different? The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." and yet we regulate speech in all manner of ways.

Even Antonin Scalia recognizes that gun ownership is subject to government regulation.

I recognize that it's theoretically possible to be to the right of Antonin Scalia, but it gets pretty lonely way out there.

#1.84

And just exactly how do "we regulate speech in all manner of ways."? I mean we make it illegal to use speech in a way that violates someone else' Rights. That is one can not libel or slander another, one can not use speech to incite riot or cause mayhem. How is that any different than making it illegal to use one's Right to firearms to murder someone? It is not. So why do we need any other regulation on firearms?

And if you really want to get into it why don't you start comparing the 1st Amendment protections to art and porn to 2nd Amendment protections. Why is it the Liberals seem to force conservative sectors of society to accept "indecent" depictions of certain subject matter as "Art", but won't allow the conservative sector their depiction of the 2nd Amendment?

"My question to all you Liberals is this, "If you don't like our society, the way it is, why don't you move to somewhere more suited to your likes, such as, Canada, England, or else where in Europe, where they have guns laws "that work", "Free" Universal Healthcare, Pensions and Welfare?
Why must I (we) change to fit YOUR Ideal and Ideology?" No one is making you stay here.
One thing about a free country, is, you are FREE to LEAVE when ever you want."

I do not say it is easy to pack up and leave. My question is, since there are already places on this planet that have most of what you want, why not go there instead of changing (ruining) my Ideal? Why not clamor to the Government, "We don't like it here, help us leave."? There is nowhere else on the planet for me, or those like me, to go. My kind (Conservative, Capitalist and Self Reliant) came here, over the last couple hundreds of years, to get away from those things we didn't like, it was not easy. All I am saying is perhaps it is time you (liberals) use the same strategy.

Good question Dummy! The answer is in an old document,

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security ..."

More specifically to guns, it is absolutely as clear as the nose on my face that the gun situation in the US is bad. It makes no sense to allow guns to so many people who are not qualified to have guns.

I understand there is a 2A. But, you know, if there was a constitutional amendment that said 100 people had to jump off that cliff every Thursday, well, I would push back on that, too.

There is lots of gun abuse in the US. We can all sit around and wait for some damn fool to pick us to randomly do some killing, which may not happen very soon, or we can have an intelligent conversation about how we can do better about letting guns go to the people who are best able to handle them.

The thing about your position that I do not understand is, yes, you want a gun, maybe for protection of some sort, but you also want it to be real easy to get a gun for people who are clearly not qualified to have a gun. Why is that alright with you?

For example, this grandmother. She had a gun. Legally it seems. But her family knew that she was nuts. In America today, what can you do if you know someone who is nuts, and who also has a gun? Not much. She has a right to be nuts and armed.

@ lola3

Janine, IA Scooter Mike, et al that point out that the parents played a part in this tragedy are right. You never know when someone is going to snap, but a woman with mental illness, split personalities is still on the pick up list for her grandchildren?
In the last year I've removed my mother from the pick up list and contact lists for my children. Her behavior has been erratic lately and she is forgetful. For example, she has no memory of shoving my son to the floor, so hard his head snapped back. Now, not the biggest offense out there, but still indicative of instability and that she forgot the entire thing...frightening.
Now, I'm not what one would call a 'gun-control nut'. I'm not in favor of banning all guns. But I ask, with all sincerity, what am I to do with my mother, who is a gun owner, and who at the time she purchased her guns (rifles to be exact) was sane by state standards, but now exhibits irrational and unstable behavior?
I started with not allowing her to be alone with them, nor to pick them up at school and no going over to her home.

That stated, my condolences to these poor parents. To lose both your babies is truly tragic.

#1.112

@ Janine-1645002

The parents knew the grandmother was unstable.

The parents Knew the grandmother had a gun.

The grandmother was asked to pick the two babies up at daycare.

WHAT is wrong with this picture?

#1.16

My Question Exactly Janine, and everyone else, "WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?"

Some body explain it to this dumb ex Farm-Boy.

#1.62

Sorry, but that was a loaded question.

But in essence, there is really nothing "wrong" with this picture. (I mean it is obvious to you in hind sight, but you were not involved and have no idea what the back story is do you Janine?)

lola3 you are onto a very important topic, and one that I was going to get into had anyone taken the bait of my question. This is part of the problem Nancy Lanza faced. How do you go about committing a person to a mental institute, or deny that person their private property (in this case a gun)? That is to say, how do you go about it in an expeditious fashion. You can't. Their are many hurdles one must jump through first. And as I understand it from some reports this is what Nancy Lanza ran into. If what was reported is correct, she was in the process of having him committed. My guess is she didn't think he would, or know that it was possibility that he could, react violently to this. (www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive_n_2329508.html)

The fact that these parents still trusted Ms. Denison (was she the maternal or paternal grandparent?) to be with the kids alone says something about your comment, "You never know when someone is going to snap". Evidently they did not think she was a threat, regardless of her weapon of choice.

Ever since the movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", there has been a campaign to increase the protection of the Mentally Ill, some of deservedly so, but I think some of it has gone too far.

I think this is an overlooked part of the conversation about gun control. Everyone on the left seems intent on banning guns based on their appearance and nothing else. We should be talking about how do we separate the Adam Lanza's from society and how do we evaluate people like, Debra Denison, and lola3's mother and keep them from dangerous weapons, (not just guns).

And how do we acknowledge that we can not stop every single act of a crazy person without running to the "Government" to have them "fix it".

Wow...I could make SO many comments, but I haven't been on in 24 hours. So I guess I've said what I have, and my prayers to the boys. I don't particularly give a crap about "dear lil' grammy" because she should have given her life to protect those children..and if all of you report me for that, I don't care. End result, dumbass parents of two lovely little children let their mentally ill grandmother be alone with them...and it doesn't matter "how" they died, or even whether a gun was involved. Two stupid idiots "let" their children be picked up by someone that should have never been left alone with them. I stated earlier that I hope those two will awaken every day, kicking their own butts for stupidity...I stand by that.

DumbFarmBoy
Exactly. And to what extent do we hold the family responsible?
My mother is not quite that far gone yet. But I see a trend and it's not going to be pretty. She's highly independent and does not trust doctors of any kind. She wouldn't believe any diagnosis given, ever. Even if my brother and I feel like she can no longer take care of herself, we will still have a very difficult time getting her into a nursing home or facility of some kind. We could call Adult Protective Services, but I foresee them having to use a straight jacket and crowbar to get her out of her house.

Nobody likes to think of a family member being capable of such acts, but you can't dismiss it can you? The process to have someone committed involuntarily is long and arduous. It's not meant to be easy, and many families are not willing to go that route for fear of anger and recriminations. But it's these family members that we villify if something goes wrong.
As far as my mother is concerned, she would pass any evaluation given to her, because she's a master at telling people what they want to hear. It's the behind-the-scenes stuff that is shocking. She's not my child. I'm hers. She's a grown woman and for all intents and purposes is functioning well in society. It's the little things that send up the red flags for me.

Now, in this case, you're right, we don't know the dynamics of this family. But the dad stated that she had a known mental illness. More than a red flag. I have to wonder why she was still on the pick up list. Especially for children so young.

lola3 #1.134

DumbFarmBoy
Exactly. And to what extent do we hold the family responsible?
My mother is not quite that far gone yet. But I see a trend and it's not going to be pretty. She's highly independent and does not trust doctors of any kind. She wouldn't believe any diagnosis given, ever. Even if my brother and I feel like she can no longer take care of herself, we will still have a very difficult time getting her into a nursing home or facility of some kind. We could call Adult Protective Services, but I foresee them having to use a straight jacket and crowbar to get her out of her house.

And you may need to do exactly that. And pay attention here Mykiddosmom. She, "does not trust doctors of any kind".(not that I trust them much either, especially the psychologist) [don't they have the highest rate of suicide on the planet?] Of course not, she is mentally ill or impaired, correct? The difficulty comes in convincing the courts they have a duty to deny a person's Right to Liberty and Property.

And this is where I think the ACLU and others have gone over board, with regard to how QUICKLY, a patient must be released. We need to be able to lock up those who present a danger and not just an immediate danger. We need to be able to lock them up long enough to evaluate the the dangers. And we also need to address the issues of those locked up erroneously.

Nobody likes to think of a family member being capable of such acts, but you can't dismiss it can you? The process to have someone committed involuntarily is long and arduous. It's not meant to be easy, and many families are not willing to go that route for fear of anger and recriminations. But it's these family members that we vilify if something goes wrong.

And you hit the nail right on the head. Just like MyKiddosMom, (IN 20/20 HINDSIGHT) blame the parents. Although, we should blame the parents, but we shouldn't at the same time. Everyone wants to believe the best about a family member especially someone's mom. Which is why I think we need to be talking about this.

We need to figure out a way of doing this "Involuntary Committal" in a quick and relatively painless way. As I pointed out, perhaps if there was a method of having someone (and perhaps there is, and I am not aware of it{which brings the other point of awareness} temporarily committed for evaluational, while the proceeding for Conservatorship are under way. How do we remove the family from the process? Not that you really can, their testimony is key. But how do we limit the impact on both parties? To hopefully mitigate long term hard feelings.

As far as my mother is concerned, she would pass any evaluation given to her, because she's a master at telling people what they want to hear. It's the behind-the-scenes stuff that is shocking. She's not my child. I'm hers. She's a grown woman and for all intents and purposes is functioning well in society. It's the little things that send up the red flags for me.

And I mentioned before, we need to be able to do long term evaluations,(so those little quirks can come out) maybe a couple weeks? a month? See this is why I am saying we are having the wrong conversation. Here we are talking about banning certain guns, based on emotional twaddle, and lipstick appearance. An AR10, AR15, et. al. are simply semi automatic rifles. PERIOD. They are no more dangerous, than any other gun, and are even in some cases less dangerous than others. PERIOD.

Like I said, maybe if Nancy Lanza could of had the tools at her disposal to deal with Adam, maybe Adam would still be safely locked away in a mental ward.

Now, in this case, you're right, we don't know the dynamics of this family. But the dad stated that she had a known mental illness. More than a red flag. I have to wonder why she was still on the pick up list. Especially for children so young.

Other articles point to bipolar, and many people function just fine with it, (but I am beginning to believe it is a catch all for things the shrinks don't understand). And my guess most people with it go to their graves never hurting anyone. How do you know when they will snap? You don't.

I have personal experience with this. A good friend of mine, an old college roommate, took a gun I sold him 25 years ago and shot his estranged wife to death. I never saw it coming, he never said during any of our conversations (he lived 200 miles away) that he wanted to hurt her, only that she was trying to "stick it to him" by taking half the family farm. (not that she really had any right to it, she was a social worker from a big city, they met at college, point is she did not work on the farm, to help build it up, yet she wanted "her fair share of it")

The last I heard they were ready to settle, and sign the papers. I guess she had to push the button one more time, (being a social worker/therapist, my guess is she was trying to get him to break, and do something stupid or violent, so she could get full custody and a nice alimony, and I guess she didn't expect what he did either) How do you know when they will snap? You don't. And history is full of such events.

WE CAN NOT STOP THEM ALL, SO QUIT ASKING THE GOVERNMENT TO THE IMPOSSIBLE.

WE CAN NOT THEM ALL, SO QUIT ASKING THE GOVERNMENT TO THE IMPOSSIBLE.

?? No one is asking government to stop all murders.

And you are correct, you never know when someone will snap.

But that does not mean that you do nothing. That does not mean that you give up.

Everyone should not have a hand gun. The people who have demonstrated proficiency with a hand gun should be allowed to have a hand gun. It is in your best interest to raise the bar on hand gun ownership.

Why do you want every moron to have a hand gun?

Everyone should not have a hand gun.

davey, davey,davey,

Everyone can't have a gun. I can't remember all the exclusions off the top of my head but at minimum you can't legally own a gun if you are or have ever been a felon, have been adjudicated mentally ill, have a PPO against you, etc, etc.

Again, those are laws in force right now, today.

Everyone who is currently allowed to buy a hand gun should not have a hand gun.

I am allowed to buy a hand gun.

Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night. Oh well. All is quiet. So peaceful. Then, sometimes, I hear a noise. What's that?! I never heard that noise before. It actually scares me.

If I had a gun, I would go get that gun. Fast. But you know what? It's just a noise.

I get scared over nothing, and I want to grab a gun. Better for me to not have a gun. I have no idea how to use it. But I could buy one today.

I'd feel safer knowing that relatively fewer people have hand guns, than me having one.

I don't want it to be easy for me to get a hand gun and I don't want it to be easy for you to get a hand gun.

@ davey-526272

WE CAN NOT THEM ALL, SO QUIT ASKING THE GOVERNMENT TO THE IMPOSSIBLE.

?? No one is asking government to stop all murders.

And you are correct, you never know when someone will snap.

But that does not mean that you do nothing. That does not mean that you give up.

Everyone should not have a hand gun. The people who have demonstrated proficiency with a hand gun should be allowed to have a hand gun. It is in your best interest to raise the bar on hand gun ownership.

Why do you want every moron to have a hand gun?

#1.136

Did you just get off your meds? or do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Where in any of my posts did I say we stop trying? Did I or did I not say this is the discussion we need to be having, instead of this asinine "Assault Weapons and Magazine" ban? And does not then that mean we keep trying to form a solution, via the discussion?

And where did "Why do you want every moron to have a hand gun?" come from. What in my post gave you the idea I want everyone to have a hand gun? Are you just stupid? Did I or did I not make the argument that we need to make it easier for family to disarm those in the family who show signs of mental illness, much like yourself.

And your rant @ 1.138 tells me you have sure signs of psychosis, so yes, you should definitely not have a gun of any kind. There are those of us who are not scared of every little "bump in the night".

Well there you have it Dummy. As you say, I have a mental illness. I am stupid. I rant. I have psychosis.

And I can buy a hand gun.

I don't know Dummy. The impression that you have of yourself may not be the impression that you are giving to others.

You say that you want discussion. Then you call people stupid. Hm, what kind of a discussion do you think you are going to have?

so yes, you should definitely not have a gun of any kind

I agree. So what do we do, as a society, to help make sure that I don't get one?

@davey

As much as we all appreciate your ridiculous scenarios, YOUR ARGUMENT IS STILL......pointless. In which way does EVERYONE have the ability to own a gun? In order to get my handgun I didn't just walk into a gunshop and say "I'll take that one" and they handed it over. Doesn't quite work like that. What ways are all of the new proposed laws going to stop guns from getting into the hands of people who shouldn't own one? You think criminals really care if they get one legally? Do you really think the "crazies" only have one way of murdering someone??

Everyone who is currently allowed to buy a hand gun should not have a hand gun.

So does this statement include Police officers or any of our Armed Forces? Tell ya what, I'm pretty sure we'd have a hard time defending this country with flower pedals and unicorns.

Why do you want to let so many crazy people get guns? You are playing a losing game. The crazy guy will get off the first shot and you or one of your family will be dead. OOps. But then, if you are still alive, you can kill him. Yay!!

Yeah lets just hand guns out to everyone...cause that's what I said right? <<sarcasm>> Just in case you were unaware, my handgun is also capable of protecting me from crazies with any other types of weapons be it knives, bats, rocks, or even their bare hands. And in the state I live in, I take my handgun on camping trips as well. Why? Because it's also capable of protecting me from cougars, bears, and coyotes....whom I am sure they wouldn't need a gun to tear you or your family members to pieces. But hey, maybe your anti-bear spray or playing dead will help you huh?

Yes, you feel safer with a gun. Yes, you believe that you are safer with a gun. But you do not know.

Yes...yes I do. You have your beliefs, and this is one of mine. And yes I do know, because I have been in situations where I have been threatened and forced to reveal my handgun..but fortunately have never had to use it. While in these same situations I am POSITIVE that your karate chop or kung-fu grip or whatever it is you feel comfortable using to protect yourself with, would have never sufficed. Here's an actual scenario for you. A man is breaking into your home armed with only a knife....what do you do? You grab whatever the nearest "weapon" you have available to you to defend yourself whether it be your kid's baseball bat or your wife's kitchen knife...and you call the police and await their arrival, right? Oops..too late..the man breaks in and stabs you to death in your own home and now you are unable to protect the rest of your family because your now...dead. Just FYI, true story, a man attempted to break into my neighbors house, with a knife, and he was met at the back door with a shotgun and a face full of bird shot. Family protected and burgurlar goes to ICU and later to prison. Would YOU have waited to see if he entered your home with honest intentions and asked him nicely to please put down the knife? Yeah...probably.

If all you can do is make up "could happen" scenarios or put words into other people's mouths to validate your non-existing argument, then your rants and your comments are pointless and tiresome.

As much as we all appreciate your ridiculous scenarios,

Dude, dozens people are murdered, accidentally shot and killed, or commit suicide every day, and the weapon is a gun. Not so ridiculous.

Your indifference is ridiculous. Your priorities are ridiculous.

"Everyone who is currently allowed to buy a hand gun should not have a hand gun."

You interpreted that to mean, 'no one should have a hand gun'. I do not mean that. I mean that many of the people who are legally allowed to purchase a hand gun should not have one.

In order to get my handgun I didn't just walk into a gunshop and say "I'll take that one" and they handed it over. Doesn't quite work like that.

Yeah, it pretty much works like that.

You think criminals really care if they get one legally?

When guns are more difficult to get legally, they will be more difficult to get illegally. And when something is difficult to get, not as many people will have them. And that includes criminals.

Yeah lets just hand guns out to everyone...cause that's what I said right? Just in case you were unaware, my handgun is also capable of protecting me from crazies with any other types of weapons be it knives, bats, rocks, or even their bare hands. And in the state I live in, I take my handgun on camping trips as well. Why? Because it's also capable of protecting me from cougars, bears, and coyotes....whom I am sure they wouldn't need a gun to tear you or your family members to pieces. But hey, maybe your anti-bear spray or playing dead will help you huh?

Well, you know something? Even though you talk like an ass, you may be qualified to handle a hand gun. It may be just fine for you to have one. But it isn't OK for me to have a hand gun, even though I can buy one legally. If I ever got a hand gun, I would kill someone for sure with it. As Dummy said, I have a mental illness. I am stupid. I rant. I have psychosis. And I can buy a gun. Is that a good thing Turkey?

Sure, you want a gun because it makes you feel safe. But you want it to be real easy for ANYONE to get a gun. Most people in the US can buy a gun, if they wanted to. Even though they have no idea how to use it, and they may even be criminals. You want it to be easy for sick people, like me, to get a gun. And because of that, every year children will die, killed by sick bastards with guns. Just because of your belief that a gun makes you safe and that everyone ought to be able to have a gun. I think you are a cold-hearted coward. I'll take my chance with the bad guys without a gun, if that will give a child a chance to live. I'll live. I can take a beating. Wassammata Turkey, can't take a beating? Wuss

So tell me Turkey, what's your plan of action in this scenario? I have a hand gun and I'm walking down the street, and I decide that I want to rob you. So, I walk up to you, put my hand gun in your face, and I say, 'reach for the sky'. What will you and your hand gun do? Feel lucky?

@not a russian/davey

Maybe you should change your name to "is an idiot". Suits you better.

I'll take my chance with the bad guys without a gun, if that will give a child a chance to live. I'll live. I can take a beating. Wassammata Turkey, can't take a beating? Wuss

Here ya go!

Since you love all your RIDICULOUS scenarios, here's a little real life for you to read, which took place a few miles from my home. I don't know what your rainbows and butterflies world is like, but people are attacked, killed, and commit suicide with many more things then just a gun. You can call me a coward..a wuss..a turkey or whatever else you think is necessary to try and prove your pointless rant, but in the end, again it's just a rant and you're a hopeless, desperate person with comments that make very little sense. Just FYI, like I said before, I am plenty capable of defending myself without one, I really just choose to carry one just in case. ;)

You want it to be easy for sick people, like me, to get a gun. And because of that, every year children will die, killed by sick bastards with guns.

Here ya go!! More reading for you!! Another real story that happened a few miles from my home. So guns are the only things that can kill kids huh? Every other way that a child dies is ok....as long as its not by a gun, is that what you're saying? And by owning one I condone children dying by the hands of psychopaths?? Hardly. Come down off your soap box and join reality...maybe then you'll be worth having an INTELLIGENT conversation with...considering you're currently lacking the tools neccessary for that (I am referring to your lack of intelligence in case you missed that). DumbFarmBoy had it right...you ARE stupid.

Good day to you "is an idiot"!!!

Since it didn't attach the links for you to read "is an idiot", the first story is about a man nearly beaten to death in Spanaway, WA. The second was the Josh Powell story in which he killed both of his young boys with a hatchet and blew his house up with all of them in it. Look it up...get yourself educated...then maybe your idiotic rants will become less idiotic.

Hey, who is that Russian guy?

I never said that guns are the only murder weapon. I don't need you to point that out to me.

They are the most commonly used murder weapon.

And, hardly anyone walks around in public with a gun. You'd be crazy to do that. New Flash: People do not walk around with guns and they live!! Long lives!

If you walk around with a gun, you are a scared individual.

But more important, you want anyone to be able to get a gun. Guns for everybody! Just go on down the gun store and buy you some guns. (oh,m ok, but not if you are a felon)

Newton Conn. How many children died? This news story we are commenting on. How many children died? It happens just about every day. Because there are so many guns floating around.

If you are such a good citizen, and such a responsible gun owners, why aren't you trying to raise the bar on the standards for gun ownership? Why do you want any GD whacko to be able to buy a hand gun??

davey-526272

Well there you have it Dummy. As you say, I have a mental illness. I am stupid. I rant. I have psychosis.

And I can buy a hand gun.

I don't know Dummy. The impression that you have of yourself may not be the impression that you are giving to others.

You say that you want discussion. Then you call people stupid. Hm, what kind of a discussion do you think you are going to have?

so yes, you should definitely not have a gun of any kind

I agree. So what do we do, as a society, to help make sure that I don't get one?

#1.140

I would have a discussion with those who don't read into my comments things that aren't there, first of all.

And I never called you stupid did I? I simple raised the question.

And as far as keeping people like you from getting a hand gun, well, that I do not know, which is why I say we need to be talking about it instead of talking about banning guns used on less than .012% of all shootings.

What we need to be talking about is how do we go about doing those things I pointed out in earlier posts. How do we get the ACLU out of the mix? How do we 'Commit' people like you to an institution for evaluation without having to fight the courts and all the legal hurdles?

Are you just stupid?

Uh, yes, that is how you call someone stupid.

Did you just get off your meds? or do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Oh now I see, you are just asking questions!

And your rant @ 1.138 tells me you have sure signs of psychosis,

Uh-huh.

And as far as keeping people like you from getting a hand gun, well, that I do not know, which is why I say we need to be talking about it instead of talking about banning guns used on less than .012% of all shootings.

Guns are used on less that .012 of all shootings??!!? I would think that guns are used in 100% of all shootings. But what the hell do I know? I am stupid and psychotic.

And no, not a ban. I never said anything about a ban.

What we need to be talking about is how do we go about doing those things I pointed out in earlier posts. How do we get the ACLU out of the mix?

The ACLU? Where is the ACLU? Are they in this discussion? Where did you get ACLU? If anything, the ACLU will support gun rights. What are you talking about?

How do we 'Commit' people lke you to an institution for evaluation without having to fight the courts and all the legal hurdles?

You are so sweet. Going to all that trouble for little ole me. You think that you can get people committed for evaluation without legal hurtles? I'm beginning to wonder about you.

Oh, and would you do me a favor and HURRY? I'm going to the gun store soon, and I decided that while I'm there, I might as well buy two hand guns. Don't you think? hm? Oh lordie, you'll be reading about me in the papers soon.

THE4CSTHATB

Did any of you read that THE FAMILY said the GRANDMOTHER WAS MENTALLY ILL AND HAD A GUN? Yet THEY SENT HER TO PICK THE BOYS UP FROM DAY CARE?

"The boys' mother, Brenda Perry, called state police around 4 p.m., when she could not find her sons and their grandmother, state police said.She said she wanted the little boys to leave daycare early because it was Alton's birthday and they were supposed to open his presents. But the little boys and their grandmother never arrived for the party."

"Police said Denison suffered from mental illness. Brenda and her husband, Jeremy Perry, told NBC Connecticut that Denison had a gun and suffered from split personalities."

The GUN was not the thinking tool here! Apparently there was no thinking tool. It doesn't matter where she got the gun the fact is she could have gotten it anywhere, and the family knew she was mentally ill and had a gun!

For you librtards, Bloomberg is the godfather of getting "illegal" guns and did you know that 18of his fellow mayors either confessed or were convicted of crimes from embezelment to sex with little boys. they all have their armed goons, with automatic weapons, to protect their sorry asses, and these jerks want tostrip law abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves. the libtards also in the past lobbied to get the mentally ill out of institutions and onto the streets. People who are mentally ill and viol;ent need to be in very restrictive custody Check out all of the gun related tragedies....and how many were known to be mentally ill. And if you are so enamored with the sanctity of life, then remember the holocaust going on right under your noses: 50+ million babies slaughtered for convenience and all of the other means of death and the politicos doing nothing to stop it. School busses with 70 kids and no seat beltys: if you take your own kid in a car with no safety restraing the fine is 500 bucks. the whole thing is a f----- up mess!

It doesn't matter where she got the gun the fact is she could have gotten it anywhere, and the family knew she was mentally ill and had a gun!

Agree, she could have gotten a gun from anywhere. But hers was a legally purchased hand gun?

Agreed, if someone in your family is mentally ill, and has a gun, that should be a concern. And, while they might have taken steps to prevent granny visits ("sorry kids, your granny is mentally ill and she has a hand gun"), how could they have taken the gun away from her, legally?

I would not be too sure about the parents having grandma on the no pick up list.

If the parents asked the grandmother to pick up the kids (and I don't know if they did because there hasn't been any info I've read about that), but if they did, I'm sure they didn't think she would do such a thing. It's probably now, in retrospect, that they are thinking about what may have caused this.

And we have no idea what "mental illness" the grandmother is supposed to have. She could have just been depressed or anxious or freaked out about germs. The whole gun control frenzy is demonizing all "mental illness" and making it seem like any mental illness makes somebody a nutcase. Lots of people qualify as "mentally ill" because they have anxiety or OCD or whatever, but that doesn't mean they are likely to kill anybody--ever. There's a huge spectrum of what is considered "mental illness" in the clinical sense.

Millions of Americans take anti-depressants or anti-anxiety drugs and the vast majority of them are not dangerous whatsoever...kind of like how millions of Americans own guns but would never kill people. We can't foresee every crime. Sad but true. This tragedy isn't about guns or how mental illness means people are evil or needing new laws to try to prevent everything that might conceivably happen. It's just a horrible family tragedy.

Prayers the poor grieving parents and for those lost.

Go back to the top and read

First line:

A grandmother who was supposed to take her two grandsons from daycare to their birthday party at home instead killed the boys and herself, Connecticut state police said.

Regarding the mental illness:

Police said Denison suffered from mental illness. Brenda and her husband, Jeremy Perry, told NBC Connecticut that Denison had a gun and suffered from split personalities.

Donna, when I posted my comment at 11:28 this morning, the article didn't include either of these pieces of information. In fact, the article this morning didn't even say that the gun was used. You may not have realized that the same set of comments follows articles that are constantly being updated with new information.

Have a nice day!

Zeviahfly: This has nothing to do with God and everything to do with humans and accountability of their own actions. People want nothing to do with God and yet they blame Him.

The way I see it is that situations like these are meant to highlight both mental illness and guns. We are careless with both--we treat mental illness as something to be swept under the carpet because it is an embarrassment to admit to having a mental illness, psychiatry isn't an exact science, and insurance companies don't want to insure mentally ill people. Guns are an issue because more often than not, they end up being used to kill. Killing in itself is wrong. I think "God's plan" is that until we stop being selfish and start thinking of others, helping others, we will suffer the consequences of our actions/in-actions.

BTW, I believe God is not an external entity but inside each and every one of us. We all have the power of God if we would be more introspective rather than materialistic. Buddhists believe we all are unrealized Buddhas and Bodhisattva's; in regards to his miracles, Jesus told his followers: "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these." (John 14:12) Now you can take that literally or you can do a little 'soul searching', and recognize it as a Truth. But we live in a time where science insists that our material viewpoint is the only Truth and sadly, looks where it has taken humanity.

It's just my opinion.

ZeivahFly

Just sad and tragic. To have to deal with a parent all your life with mental illness and then to have that parent take two young children from you.

Where are the "God has a plan..." people when you need them.

Why even waste your time with the first sentence? Like we all can't figure out why you posted.

Maybe you should actually wait for those people to show up so you can begin your ranting and raving. Baiting them just makes you look like a troll.

Am I the only one who is getting sick and tired of people who come out AFTER the fact to say that "we knew she or he was mentally ill" or, as in this case, "we knew she had a split personality AND a gun"!!! Yes, this was a tragic event but one that could have been entirely prevented by the children's parents if only they had shown one ounce of responsiblity. To trust the care of their children to a woman they KNEW was mentally ill and owned a weapon was simply criminal.

Charle states, "Guns are an issue because more often than not, they end up being used to kill."

How many guns are there in America in private citizens' hands? How many of those guns have ever been used in the killing of a person? Your numbers don't add up.

65 million gun owners killed no one today.

You know "nothing" about snakes dude. Go ahead and stick your arm out and lets find out if it's a "dry" bite. What a dummy man...

LOL yeah sure, other than I spent 11 years as a zookeeper (including handling snakes) and 3 years prior to that working with exotics (including snakes) and I spend a lot of time in the woods surrounded by---you guessed it--snakes. (including venomous ones) I'm speaking from over a decade of real, actual experience and twice that of informal experience. I've also worked with reptile experts. But I suppose you think you know more than the experts do in reptile behavior. Typical of your ilk

pffft, all you know how to do is call people names because you don't have any education or experience to back up your ignorant, partisan BS. the worst part about this? I can tell by having read dozens of your posts that you are not stupid. just woefully uninformed and apparently comfortable to remain that way

Bulldozer62; If you really want Creekdog to see your response and respond to it, you need to post it in the right thread # so he'll see it.

Of course, if you DID want to insult him in a way where he wouldn't see it and respond, then you did it correctly, and my helpful advice is useless.

Hey steel toe, Bulldozer gave it to Creak Dog like Creak Dog gives it.

Creaky Dog may have oodles of personality, but he is short on substance. Like, telling someone with years of snake experience that he knows nothing about snakes.

Creaky speaks about that which he knows nothing. Creaky is cute, but God, he's dumb. He wins the prize for speaking with great authority, on a subject about which he knows nothing.

But I read every one of his posts. He is a genuine internet personality. I can't get enough Creak Dog. I say, give him a TV program. I'll watch it.

"Hey steel toe, Bulldozer gave it to Creak Dog like Creak Dog gives it."

Did he? His 'meathod' kind of reminds me of the wimp who gets insulted, then two days later and twenty miles away, comes up with a real zinger of a retort. In case you didn't notice, even though my son owns snakes and has many books on them and lives in my house, I did not come out and say who I think is right. I only commented on how he responded.

Where are the "God has a plan..." people when you need them.

God gave people brain to use ,not to loose.......

In this case parents have not use their brain and God is out of it .Little angels RIP ,your creator takes good care of you now ,that you are back in his arms .

Well steel toe, we certainly need someone to police the net for good etiquette. Have at it!

why thank you, Steel toed Boot. I was typing with a fat sandbag of a cat trying to sit on my laptop and didn't realize I had scrolled down. much obliged--nothing I can't remedy with a little coy & paste

Most of the people in the world could be classified as mentally ill. LOL Given all the crazy wars and child abuse rape and and and how could we think otherwise. LOL

Here's some salacious details for you:

U.S. has 8 times the number of gun related deaths than any other civilized, industrialized nation.

U.S. has 12 times the number of gun related deaths of children aged 14 and younger than 26 other civilized, industrialized nations COMBINED.

Those should make any one of us swallow a little harder when supporting their rights to freely own guns.

Geanie: The right to bare arms is there to protect YOU! Who is going to protect you when the government decides to turn on it's people? If anything should make you swallow harder, it's the fact that Obama is allowing Drones to spy on us, the American people. Why would the government allow such a thing??? Educate yourself about why the forefathers wanted the right to bear arms before you ignorantly mouth off your opinion....

If you're going to spout off numbers about gun related deaths then why not car related deaths also? Compare the death rates of guns and cars.

I've been wondering why NBCNews hasn't published at least a blurb about Senator Chris Murphy's recent report about the opinions of gun owners and the leadership of the NRA. In his report based on telephone polls of gun owners who are NRA members and non-NRA members, he concludes that nearly 80% of NRA members are FOR background checking and registration of guns, and that the NRA leadership is in collusion with gun manufacturers to support less restrictions for buying guns because of the money gun manufacturers give to the NRA to lobby for them.

I would think that this is a significant news story.

olivia:

You have the unalienable right to wear short-sleeved shirts. Protect me from what - your hysterical paranoia?

You have the unalienable right to research "Watergate", "The House Committee on Un-American Activities", etc, etc. as well. Educate yourself.

SDN: To have complete trust in your government is beyond stupid. What hysterical paranoia are you talking about? The fact that I stated that Obama is allowing Drones to spy on us??? You are just as ignorant and uneducated about what the government is doing. You must enjoy living your life blindfolded and oblivious.

Your tactic of unalienable right to wear short-sleeved shirts and blah, blah, blah...really? That's your defense on why Americans should no longer have the right to own guns? What are you in grade school that you have to point out irrelevant topics to defend your stance. If you no longer wish to be in a country where people have a right to own guns then by all means, move out of this country. The US is not the only place to live.

We need to ban grandmothers.

Because the parents sent the grandmother to the school to pick up the children. If you scroll to the top you will see that it is in the first line of the story right now.

Yep Jazzman I agree your IQ must have dropped below 70 by your comment.

U.S. has 8 times the number of gun related deaths than any other civilized, industrialized nation.

U.S. has 12 times the number of gun related deaths of children aged 14 and younger than 26 other civilized, industrialized nations COMBINED.

Those should make any one of us swallow a little harder when supporting their rights to freely own guns.

Geanie Tilley

do you have any links to support your dribble or are we to believe it just like MSN??

rocky:

Stick with FOX - you'll find it far less confusing, far less frustrating, and far less factual. Agenda that goes down easy.

Geanie Tilley, I'm glad to see that you have the 'cut and paste' function fully mastered. That's covered in the Constitution under the first amendment (freedom of speech). You might read just a little further, say into the second amendment, which covers citizens' right to keep and bear arms. Do you think your rights under the first amendment are more important than mine under the second amendment?

Geanie - I read a report in the last 2-3 weeks taken by an organization that is impartial. Don't ask me to give you all the details. I'm really not that interested. But I do remember many of the details. You should be able to find it with some of this info:

50 countries were checked. Of those 50 countries the U. S. was #1 in number of guns owned-270,000,000. That was over 5 times as many as #2 which had 50,000,000. Then those 50 countries were listed in order of the number of gun deaths, highest number of deaths was #1 on the list. The U.S. was either #25 or 26 in order. So, a country with 50,000,000 guns is #1 in number of deaths by gun and the U.S. with 270,000,000 is #25 or 26 down the list. That means 24-25 countries in this world with many, many less guns than we have are ahead of us in the death watch. I think that says we are actually one of the safest countries in the world with guns, don't you? Look it up.

Jim Jones killed 909 people with Kool Aid. Andrea Yates drowned her five children. Susan Smith drove her car into a lake and drown her two children. Timothy McVeigh kills 168 people with a bomb made out of fertilizer. The number of children who die from physical abuse and neglect continues to climb every year. Most of the poor innocents under the age of four. Ted Bundy, The Boston Strangler, Richard Speck, Jeffrey Dahmer all killed without the use of firearms. The list goes on and on.

We have a two part problem. We have those who are mentally ill and we don't always know who they are to begin with, let alone to protect ourselves should they snap. The current laws do not allow us to institutionalize those we do know of that are deemed unstable unless there is an outward threat to themselves or others. And even that is hard to get the courts to enforce. On the other hand we have the gun toting gangs and hot tempered drunks or crimes of passion people who kill with whatever means they have accessible. The Chicago gangs weapon du jour are handguns, most purchased illegally. Then there's the abusive boyfriend/husband who beats his girl to death. You only need to watch a few ID channel shows to know where there is a will, there is a way if you want to kill someone.

I grew up with guns. My father was a deer hunter. I was taught to respect the weapon. But most of all to respect mankind. You can't teach that to someone who is mentally disturbed. I don't claim to have the answers. I do know that going back as far as Cain killing Abel, (no gun there) that man will kill his fellow man. Duels, Gladiators, Shootouts, Lynching, Stoning, Witch burning, etc. We should work on being more civilized. Removing all the guns isn't an option any more than removing the knives, swords, bombs, or Kool Aid for that matter. People kill for all sort of reasons. Our morals, values and culture are deteriorating. Do you even know your neighbor's name? Obama was a community organizer. Is the south side of Chicago any better that he was there? How many other organizers see what is happening in the inner cities. Too many fatherless children, latchkeys, drug dealer offspring with no direction other than the one presented to them. The behavioral pattern repeats from generation to generation. Even when Bill Cosby reached out they scoffed at him for doing so. So those of you who want to bash the decent, moral, law abiding people of this country for owning a gun without malice intent I don't believe you see the forest for the trees. Our problems go way beyond the LEGAL gun holder. As I close, I read with sadness the death of a two month old at the hands of her drunken father in Philadelphia.

If your against the 2nd Amendment that please relocate to a country that fits your views. I here Japan does not allow you to own a firearm or sword unless your filth rich... They also dont need a warrent to search your property or infringe on your privacy. Maybe England is a better choice... you just give up your right to choose who governs you and as for violence you dont have to worry about a gun just a blunt object or a knife.

Jeremy and Brenda Perry, parents of the two young boys, told NBC Connecticut that Denison had a gun

Here come the gun violence deniers again. And we don't even know if a GED is involved.

perry:

And if the AAA has it's way, even you can drive on our freeways.

Arizona No gun used !! You are a complete fool or didn't even read the article Bet its the complete fool

clayton: You're statement just proves my point. I didn't say she didn't use a gun. The article say her kids SAID she had a gun. You took that statement and embellished it to read she used the gun to kill.

I happen to know she did use a gun, but I'm not stupid enough to say so until I do know.

Clayton,

the article says

The cause and manner of death will be determined

Therefore Arizona is right, maybe YOU need to read the article AGAIN

Am I the only one who actually saw the words "... all three died of apparent gunshot wounds."?

Yes, because those words were not apart of the article, earlier this morning.

Holy Crap! Why should the Republicans care about you? Do you need defending, or a gun class?

Republicans are for the individual: Democrats are for the people.

I am tired of paying for "people"...just give me my gun and for God's sake, take HEED

William That shows every one should own a couple or more of guns doesn't it.

That shows every one should own a couple or more of guns doesn't it.

Right, because the solution to gun violence is more guns.

Brilliant.

We live in a country of more than 300 million people, when you really look at the percentage of gun incidents, it's quite small per capita . These stories are increasingly sensationalized by the media these days when gun violence has actually been in decline since the late 90's. The liberal media are effective in controlling people. Basically whatever disaster they deem relevant, they will beat like a dead horse until you morons are convinced that the sky is falling.

Yes...well the Florida man was an idiot. And I loved the part of the story that stated the dog wasn't arrested because an investigation was pending. LOL

We live in a country of more than 300 million people, when you really look at the percentage of gun incidents, it's quite small per capita . These stories are increasingly sensationalized by the media these days when gun violence has actually been in decline since the late 90's

Bull@!$%#.

First of all, U.S. gun homicides per 100,000 in population are 92.5 times that in the U.K. 185 times that in Japan. 7 times that in Switzerland, and on and oon. It has nothing to do with population size.

Second of all, the decline in gun violence in the 90's ended around 2000. Gun homicides and gun violence has remained basically flat since then.

The liberal media are effective in controlling people.

Finally, about 85 people die in the U.S. every day from a gun, 25 of them homicides. 85% of all the children in the world who are killed with a gun die in the U.S. If these stories were representative of the actual carnage, we'd be seeing them all day long, night and day, every day, all year long.

So gun violence in the U.S. actually is much higher than any other industrialized country, it has not been in significant decline for over a decade, and the media doesn't even begin to cover a representative sample of it's prevalence.

The son-in-law could'a done it for all we know.

Any excuse for rationalizing gun violence. Classy.

any excuse to chastise guns and their owners CLASSY

any excuse to chastise guns and their owners

Chastise? Poor baby. Kids die every day because guns are too easy to obtain, and you whine about being chastised?

Many, but not all, gun owners seem to want all the freedom that comes with their right without lifting a finger themselves to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally unstable. No background checks, no registration, no licensing, no nothing.

It's time we held gun owners responsible for the carnage that results from their irresponsible attitude about access to firearms, and stop accepting the litany of excuses for the resulting deaths for which they themselves are responsible through their negligence.

I say, if you think you have a right to own a gun without taking any responsibility for keeping guns - all guns - out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill, then the results - thousands of dead every year - are your fault.

@ tim

You can thank the drug companies for the many mind altering drugs they sell you & yours everyday. Just listen to the side effects. Why don't you show as much hatred of the drug companies as you do gun owners

Although I appreciate the concern about drugs, the problem with gun violence is GUNS.

Although I appreciate the concern about drugs, the problem with gun violence is GUNS.

Because the gun promised to pick up the children. Because the gun wrote the suicide note. Because the gun drove to the day care center. Because the gun squeezed the trigger and killed the children and then turned and killed the grandmother.

Yep, the problem with gun violence is GUNS

Tim- you must be the stupidest person on this thread tonight. The problem is mental illness. How you cannot fathom that either tells me you refuse to tackle the hard problems or you have a hidden agenda, or you have a massive learning disability...Or a combination of all three.

Get a clue.

Tim- you must be the stupidest person on this thread tonight. The problem is mental illness. How you cannot fathom that either tells me you refuse to tackle the hard problems or you have a hidden agenda, or you have a massive learning disability...Or a combination of all three.

Not very long on people skills, are we?

The problem with gun violence in the U.S. is a direct result of guns being so plentiful and so readily available and easy to obtain. The 'blaming the inanimate object' argument is idiotic, and a distraction from the root problem - as is the discussion of mental illness, since only a tiny fraction of gun violence is perpetrated by the mentally ill.

The problem with gun violence is guns - and in particular, how many of them there are and how easy it is to get one.

Does that explain things simply enough for you?

time-

No it does NOT explain things simply enough for anyone except the Liberals that want to instill MORE GUN CONTROL. You will NEVER stop a criminal from owning a firearm; they will always get their hands on a firearm and they will never turn themselves in to the police. The only thing you are doing is prevent a law-abiding responsible gun owner from legally defending themselves.

...since only a tiny fraction of gun violence is perpetrated by the mentally ill.

So you are saying that the massacres in Aurora, Co, Newtown, CT, and now this one are just a tiny fraction of the gun violence? Then WHY PRAY TELL do I see POTUS Barry, Puddinghead Biden, Dianne Epstein, Chucky Schumer, and Dildo Cuomo ALL TOUTING these massacres?!?!?! Why are they trying to ban 'assault-style rifles'???!?!? Puddinghead himself said in a video to women, "Why would you want an AR-15? They are too hard to aim; go buy yourself a shotgun instead..." HOW STUPID. I am sure there are a couple of thousand women in uniform who serve this country that have that as their standard issue service weapon that would beg to differ to the Vice President of Stupidity.

A majority of gun violence by criminals are perpetrated using handguns. These are semi-automatic handguns (in general) and rare do you hear about revolvers, though they are making a comeback- as in this case for instance.
I challenge you to subscribe to NRA on twitter and you will see they post regularly on twitter each time a law-abiding citizen defended themselves against a criminal by having a handgun at the ready. You rarely see that on this website.

As a law-abiding, responsible gun owner I go to gun shows, I buy my weapons after getting a background check and I store them in a gun safe. I play Call of Duty, I watch violent movies, and I recently picked up another AR-15.
GUESS WHAT? I STILL have no inkling, no motive, no urge, or any drive to want to kill anyone and neither do any of my AR-15 rifles. I will defend my self with my weapon but that does not mean I want to kill anyone. If they are stupid enough to try and hurt/kill me, then the odds will be even.
Big difference between killing someone with malice and self-defense.

FIX MENTAL ILLNESS AND PREVENT CRIMES. That will reduce the amount of gun violence. Come up with a solution that does NOT infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights. You do that and I will support you.
But if you continue to tout gun control as the solution then I will fight you and everyone like you that thinks the same way.

PS: No need to try to make me feel guilty about those dead children or the ones from Sandy Hook. I didn't kill them. I feel for the families for their senseless loss, but it was not my fault that an irresponsible fun-owner allowed herself to get killed by her mentally-deranged son. It is also not my fault that two irresponsible parents trusted their mother who had a history of mental illness to possess a firearm and go pick up their children. I feel for each parent and their loss, but again- I am a law-abiding citizen and it was NOT my fault.

You will NEVER stop a criminal from owning a firearm; they will always get their hands on a firearm and they will never turn themselves in to the police.

The fact that every other industrialized country on Earth has effectively done so...don't let that get in the way of your fantasy. It's interesting to me that we seem to have super-criminals in the U.S., impervious to laws and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, apparently. Funny, because the few I've met have been the dumbest people I've ever seen. Go figure. The argument is empty and specious. Of course most criminals will be thwarted in efforts to get a guns if we put more obstacles in their way.

Meanwhile, defensive gun use has been shown (by Hemenway) to be highly exaggerated by the gun lobby ("up to 2.5 million incidents per year" - bull@!$%#), and probably occurs between 65,000 and 100,000 times per year - a small fraction of the incidents of gun violence overall. And rather than being a deterrent to crime, increased gun use is associated with increased gun violence. Again, go figure.

Background checks, registration and licensing does not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights and does contributed to reducing gun violence. And that is the problem: gun violence. By opposing reasonable gun regulations - and to be clear these ARE reasonable to every other civilized country on Earth - by opposing them you are shirking your responsibility as a gun owner and condoning the rampant gun carnage that we endure every day. In other words, yes, as far as I'm concerned it is your responsibility and it is your fault.

Your choice.

Cite your sources; I smell bull@!$%# coming from your posts...What other industrialized country are you referring to? I will point to Australia. Do some research on that country's predicament after they 'eradicated' all law-abiding citizen's access to firearms.

I do not subscribe to your finger pointing at me and those like me that it is my fault. You can take that notion and stick it up your ass for all I care.

I have the right to bear arms and I have a right to my privacy. With that, I will resist your feeble attempt to simplify your argument. I noticed you deflected my argument regarding crime and mental illness...STANDARD.

UNODC is the source but there are others that are consistent with their numbers.

U.S. gun homicide rate is 3.12 per 100,000. Australia is 0.13. Canada is 0.51. Switzerland is 0.77. Israel is 0.94. Oh, and the U.K. is 0.04, and Japan is 0.02. All tiny fractions of the U.S. There is no actual predicament in Australia - that's another gun lobby fabrication. They haven't had a mass murder in years - we have one practically every month, and gun violence in Australia is down overall.

Mental illness is a side issue, frankly. Relatively few gun homicides are related to mental illness. The root cause of gun violence is guns, and their rampant availability. We're going fix that.

I couldn't care less what you subscribe to - it won't be me you'll be dealing with if you break the law, pal. Your right to bear arms is not an unrestricted one, as the Supreme Court as affirmed more than once (D.C. v. Heller for example) - and it's about to get some overdue restrictions.

I guess you didn't read this the first time:

...since only a tiny fraction of gun violence is perpetrated by the mentally ill.

Mental illness is a side issue, frankly. Relatively few gun homicides are related to mental illness.

So you are saying that the massacres in Aurora, Co, Newtown, CT, Tucson, AZ, and now this one are just a tiny fraction of the gun violence? Then WHY PRAY TELL do I see POTUS Barry, Puddinghead Biden, Dianne Epstein, Chucky Schumer, and Dildo Cuomo ALL TOUTING these massacres?!?!?! Why are they trying to ban 'assault-style rifles'???!?!? Puddinghead himself said in a video to women, "Why would you want an AR-15? They are too hard to aim; go buy yourself a shotgun instead..." HOW STUPID. I am sure there are a couple of thousand women in uniform who serve this country that have that as their standard issue service weapon that would beg to differ to the Vice President of Stupidity.

Here you go, for your viewing pleasure:
http://youtu.be/jafkVM-jnbE

PS: I still award you as the stupidest person on this thread...Cheers!

tim-

I bet this pisses you off to no end:
http://youtu.be/GQpfQd1397E

American ingenuity at its best...Enjoy!

I see. You lost the argument on facts so now all that's left to you is silliness and name calling.

Good luck with that.

And you STILL haven't answered my question regarding those elected officials insistance on leveraging massacres perpetrated by mentally deranged criminals when YOU agree that they only stand for a tiny fraction of gun violence. They want to ban 'assault-style' weapons meaning AR-15 semi-automatic rifles

Get back to me on that; if you can't, then BEAT IT- you are no smarter than the rest of them, therefore, ergo, itsamatta facto, you are STILL the stupidest person on this thread...Cheers!

And you STILL haven't answered my question regarding those elected officials insistance on leveraging massacres perpetrated by mentally deranged criminals when YOU agree that they only stand for a tiny fraction of gun violence.

Why should I answer for them? What I said is true - every word of it, and I backed it up with sources. I'll defend my own positions, thank you. Let me know if you come up with anything more substantive to back up your position than this:

...itsamatta facto, you are STILL the stupidest person on this thread.

Oh, the irony.

I would agree. The gun certainly made it 'easier' but BOTH the "left" and the "right" are missing the point entirely when it comes to the problem that should be addressed. Mental illness is a serious problem in society, for a variety of complex reasons. Yet hollering for gun control is simply clamoring to put a Band-Aid on an arterial bleed--when will we deal with the mentally ill, the ones who are a danger to themselves and society? I'm not talking about someone who's eccentric and a little off (as many people have already argued on other articles "who will determine a particular degree of mental illness), I'm talking about people who exhibit obviously dangerous, erratic, and completely irrational behavior. Look at any of these major incidents committed by someone who was labeled "unstable" after the fact---there were warning signs. But most of the time, nothing is done until tragedy strikes--THEN everyone clamors "something should have been done." Funny, WHILE the person is exhibiting this kind of behavior, often for months or years, NO one will intervene in the name of "infringing upon rights and freedom." I ask, WHERE do we draw the line so we can prevent as many of these tragedies as possible?

A gun cannot kill anyone on its own fact. And your two countries for example lets look at those 1 stats England-A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year. Yes you can say people will still kill cause its true.

U.S. has 8 times the number of gun related deaths than any other civilized, industrialized nation.

U.S. has 12 times the number of gun related deaths of children aged 14 and younger than 26 other civilized, industrialized nations COMBINED.

Those should make any one of us swallow a little harder when supporting their rights to freely own guns.

How many knife attack victims in England die?

More people in the U.S. die from gun violence than all other forms of weapons combined. 92.5 times as many as in the U.K.

G.Tilley...how many times are you going to post that? You do realize that once is enough and it's not like washing your hair...rinse and repeat. Have a great day.

Geanie Tilleyvia Facebook

U.S. has 8 times the number of gun related deaths than any other civilized, industrialized nation.

U.S. has 12 times the number of gun related deaths of children aged 14 and younger than 26 other civilized, industrialized nations COMBINED.

Those should make any one of us swallow a little harder when supporting their rights to freely own guns.

where are you facts coming from your arse??

rocky:

Have you noticed that your posts always end up in the same place?

Rocky, your facts are correct but the most gun violence occurs in areas with the strictest gun laws. How do you explain that?

Instead of banning guns from law abiding citizens so that only criminals have access to them (which is what is occurring in all the areas of the US right now that have the toughest gun laws and the highest homicide rates by gun violence) we should instead do what Switzerland (a country with one of the lowest homicide rates by gun in the world) has been successfully doing for over a century - arming all its citizens. Every citizen is trained in the use and safety of a gun. All households are required by law to have guns since Switzerland has no standing army. Apparently this works since the annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52 percent in Switzerland compared to 5.2 percent in the US.

Geanie Tilley, I see you are still practicing at 'cut and paste'. They say practice makes perfect, so you should be approaching perfection by now...

Why are people so stupid?

England violent crime dwarfs ours, 2.1million vs 1.2

Guns prevent violent crime, so basically, we have less violent crime, even though England has way less guns.

Another thing, 50% of Americans own 1-2 guns, sorry you can't ban that. If you take guns away from law abiding citizens the criminals will have a field day.

Need to be smart about this type of argument.

First of all, there is no evidence that guns prevent crime to any significant effect, but plenty of evidence that more guns result in more gun violence. Secondly, only about a third of Americans one one or more guns. Violent crime is not the same as gun violence, and the difference is the mortality rate.

Be smart yourself.

What I want to know why this lady was allowed to keep a gun when they knew she was mentally unstable and why she was allowed to take them out of the daycare. If they were taken by gunpoint then police should have been called and involved. And think of this. In politics haven't the ones ranting and raving to keep there guns the ones that sound most mentally ill? Noone shoots anyone unless they are defending themselves or it is an accident that is not mentally ill. Why are people upholding this ideal. I don't believe a mentally ill person has a constitutional right to carry a gun but the rest of us have a constitutional right to be safe from those that do. It is time to think about the innocents not the nuts.

Ever heard of responsibility for duis or just driving recklessly? They are held accountable. It is time for guns to be limited too just like everything else is.

ktlin: You can have a hundred DUIs, and it's still legal for you to buy a car.

Arizona after reading your Post's on several topics, Especially guns and weapons I believe one day myself and others will be reading about you involved in some mass shooting you sound like the type the way you defend weaponry. "Just Saying"

@ranknfile : Forgive and overlook Arizona for he happens to be from that state where apparently at least 60% is mentally handicap must be the climate there. Look at their ones in state government almost all a bit off in the upper story. He is an example of someone that shouldn't own a gun.

Everyone is so worried about killing, whether it be animals or people. My question is what do you eat then? A dead rotting carcas? Last i knew plants are alive so in order to eat them you must kill them. Take the second amendment and the first will be right behind it.

It is not the gun laws that need to be changed. It is our mental health system that needs the overhaul. We toss the mentally ill folks aside and do not monitor changes as we should. Then we are surprised when things take a deadly turn. Mental illness is not something you can just hand out a drug for. It needs to be monitored and treated just like any disease. It also requires behavior modifications with followup on how the person is progressing and if they are in any way an endangerment they need to be put in a safe and monitored environment.

You keep saying AAA...I keep thinking of the Automobile club. Are you trying to refer to the NRA? Just asking. And I've never heard of anyone having a hundred DUI's and still being allowed to walk the streets (LONG before they reach 100...they'd have lost their license on the first <suspended>, permanently on their 3rd, and be in prison).

mykid:

Don't confuse him any further than he already is. It's possible he's been referring to "AA".

Oddly, the #2 state for murders nationally is Texas, where gun ownership is discouraged and highly regulated.

AAA is a mid-sized car insurance company, which has to be what he is referring to. Seems like he knows more about insurance companies then you know about guns SDN & mykid.

He is refering to the ins co. it's call sarcasim. A car was used in the commission of the crime. Hold the AAA responsible not the NRA or lack of gun control.

Typically stupid comments from Tumbelweed

I find it interesting that as soon as there is a gun mishap anywhere it is front & center, and all common sense goes right out the window.

Anyone happen to see that breast cancer rates have doubled in the last 30 years. I happen to think its in relation to what is put in municiple water systems, carpets, other household items, food, and what the drug companies are feeding us. With the technology of the last 30 years, it makes absolutely no sense at all this would be happening. People are never going to wake up. They're to indoctrinated

Actually, it does say they were killed with a gun:

All three bodies were found in a car Tuesday evening, two hours after an Amber Alert went out for the 2-year-old and 6-month-old. Police have classified the case as a double murder-suicide and said all three had apparent gunshot wounds, according to state police.

While it is very true that if she had wanted to kill them she could have killed them in any manner of ways, she killed them with a gun. And even if she didn't, the kids in Newtown were killed with a GUN the people in Aurora were killed with a GUN. A knife, a club, a bat, nothing kills people as quickly as a gun does. And you can say your gun is for hunting all day long, but even that is for killing. Even if YOU use your gun for target shooting, does not mean someone else could not use it for KILLING. It needs to be REGULATED. Not taken away. My family owns a gun, I understand the desire to have one, but this ridiculous notion that any kind of regulation is going to mean the gun will eventually be taken away is just that, ridiculous. This is not Nazi Germany, the conditions are not even close to similar, and anyone that says they are is frankly insulting every person that died because of the Holocaust. I have a Master's degree in history, I have studied the Holocaust through and through, do not argue with me on this. This is not even close to a totalitarian regime. Pretending it is is just that. The Supreme Court is in place and strong. We have laws in place against drunk driving, and yet people drive drunk all the time. Should we get rid of those laws too? Each time a drunk driving law is put into place, does anyone panic that they will take away our cars?? We have them in place because drunk driving kills people, and if we save even one life with those laws, isn't it worth it? Guns kill people - yes, a person has to pull the trigger, but a person has to drive the car too. Stop with the arguments that your kids gave you and use your common sense. Or do you not want to save a few lives?

Let the gun nuts start collapsing my comment now because they can't handle a little common sense......

I have been saying for the longest time that nobody wants all your guns. Just the ones that allow you to walk into ANY crowded public place and start shooting round after round because...?

Gun no Gun who gives a sh!t, this crazy grandma kills her daughters kids. and no one saw it comming this just don't scan. death was in the wind no matter what she used!

We need a law against mentally ill people owning a gun.......OH Wait we have one and it didn't work.

Reagan closed the state mental hospitals and forced the patients on family or on the streets. Another Republican victory.

huh?

You're not alone cr. There are a lot of folks on here that don't understand.

Arizona -now thats funny

Yep Arizona doesn't understand that guns kill !

clayton: PEOPLE kill people. And use a lot of different weapons to do so.

The most used weapon in the history of man is the ROCK. It's still used today.

Actually Clayton- I'm with Arizona. whats funny is that a lot of people don't understand

guns are not going away, so it would be nice if you all stop cryin and whining about guns. lets hold people responsible for their actions. all you idiots think banning certain firearms are gonna make this @!$%#stop its not, so in the meantime im keeping my guns (who have never killed anybody). if you dont like it here move to a gun free country and see if its better then when you find out its not let us know...go get the ef out